SANJVINI SUPERSPECIALITY HOSPITAL v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
WP/3444/2026 · 2026-08-03
Suraj Govindaraj
body2026
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 34769 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2026 DAILYLAW 34769 (KAR) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
- 1 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010074402026 NC: 2026:KHC:40412 WP No. 3444 of 2026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 3RD DAY OF AUGUST, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 3444 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN:
SANJEEVINI SUPERSPECIALITY HOSPITAL BEHIND SHRIRAM AUTOMALL, NH 50, ALAMATTI ROAD, VIJAYAPUR - 586 109, REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR/PARTNER, DR. BABUGOUDA M NYAMANNAWAR, S/O MALAKENDRARAY NYAMANNAWAR (REGISTERED UNDER INDIAN P ARTNERSHIP ACT, 1932). …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VARUN JAYKUMAR PATIL, ADVOCATE) AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY. 2. THE SUVARNA AROGYA SURAKSHA TRUST DEPARTMENT OF HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE, TTMC "A" BLOCK, 4TH FLOOR SHANTINAGAR, KH ROAD, BENGALURU - 560 027, REP. BY ITS EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR REGISTERED UNDER TRUST ACT. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANT NAIK, AGA)
Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010074402026 NC: 2026:KHC:40412 WP No. 3444 of 2026
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT NO.2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATIONS OF PETITIONER VIDE ANNEXURE-D TO D2, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ
ORAL ORDER
1. Learned AGA accepts notice for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:
“i. Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the Respondent No.2 to consider the representations of Petitioner vide Annexures-D to D2 in the interest of justice & equity;
ii. Pass such other orders as may be appropriate in the facts and circumstances of the case, in the ends of justice and equity.”
3. The petitioner claims that the petitioner being a hospital had entered into a Memorandum of Understanding with respondent No.2 with an intention to make available medical benefits to the citizens of the State by treating and diagnosing select ailments. In terms of Memorandum
- 3 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010074402026 NC: 2026:KHC:40412 WP No. 3444 of 2026
of Understanding, the petitioner claims to have rendered several services and raised invoices, which were not paid. Hence, the petitioner had submitted representations dated 29.07.2019 and 06.08/2019 at Annexure-D, series, which have also not been considered.
It is in that background, the petitioner is before this Court seeking for the aforesaid reliefs. 4. Whenever any contractual arrangement is entered into by the State or any organization promoted by the State, it is required for the said authority to act on the said Memorandum of Understanding and release the amounts, which are due. 5. In the present case, when the amounts were not released, representations at Annexure-D series were submitted in the year 2029, which have also not been considered. These representations were required to be considered and necessary orders passed, within a reasonable period of time, either accepting or rejecting the representations. - 4 -
HC-KAR
CNR: KAHC010074402026 NC: 2026:KHC:40412 WP No. 3444 of 2026
6. Needless to say, if an order of rejection were to be passed, it ought to have been accompanied by reasons. None of that having been done, the petitioner is left with no option. 7. As such, this Court passes the following order. a) Writ petition is allowed. b) A mandamus is issued directing respondent No.2 to consider the representations of the petitioner at Annexure-D series, within a period of thirty (30) days from the date of receipt of copy of this order in terms of the Memorandum of Understanding entered into between the parties and any other contractual documents. c) It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of petitioner. The same would have to be ascertained on the basis of the contractual documents. Sd/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE GJM List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4