- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ WRIT PETITION NO. 31271 OF 2018 (LB-TAX) BETWEEN: SRI. B.G. SRINIVASA RAO SON OF LATE B.P. GOPALAKRISHNA RAO, AGED ABOUT 71 YEARS, RESIDING AT NO.53/12, 'SRI KRISHNA', B.N.P. COMPOUND, M.G.ROAD, TUMKUR - 572 101. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SIDDAMALLAPPA P.M., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT, GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE DIRECTOR MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, TUMKUR - 572 101. 3. THE COMMISSIONER TUMKUR MAHANAGARA PALIKE TUMKUR - 572 101. 4. THE PRESIDENT TUMKUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TUMKUR - 572 101. ® Digitally signed by SHWETHA RAGHAVENDRA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 5. THE REVENUE OFFICER TUMKUR MUNICIPAL CORPORATION, TUMKUR - 572 101. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. CHANDINI SINGH, HCGP FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SUBRAMANYA R., ADVOCATE FOR R3 TO R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.3 TO 5 TO CONSIDER HIS REPRESENTATION LETTERS DATED 27.07.2017 AND 10.08.2017 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND H AND ISSUE FORM NO.3 AND THEREBY TO ADJUST THE EXCESS TAX PAID BY THE PETITIONER TOWARDS FUTURE PAYMENT OF TAXES AND ETC. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ ORAL ORDER 1. Petitioner is before this Court seeking for the following reliefs:- (a) "Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus or any other writ, order or direction, directing the Respondent No.3 to 5 to consider his representation letters dated: 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 under Annexure-F And H and issue Form No.3 and thereby to adjust the excess tax paid by the petitioner towards future payment of taxes; - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 (b) issue a writ in the nature of certiorari or any other writ, order or direction quashing the impugned endorsement Annexure-A bearing THU MA PAA/KAMSHA/CR/4158/2017-18, dated: 27.07.2017; (c) Issue such other writ, order or directions as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the ends of justice and equity. " 2. The grievance of the petitioner is that the representations dated 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017, produced at Annexures ‘F’ and ‘H’ respectively, have not been considered by respondent No.3 and no orders have been passed thereon till date, despite repeated requests and the lapse of several years, the respondents have failed to discharge their statutory and administrative obligation of considering the said representations and communicating a decision thereon. It is a matter of serious concern that representations submitted as far back as the year 2017 have remained pending without any orders being passed, which reflects prolonged administrative inaction. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents submits that no orders were passed on the said representations on the ground that the present writ petition was pending before this Court. 4. This submission is wholly untenable. It is trite law that the mere pendency of a writ petition does not, by itself, operate as a stay on the exercise of statutory or administrative powers, nor does it relieve the authorities of their obligation to perform duties vested in them under law. Unless there is a specific interim order passed by this Court restraining the authorities from proceeding further, the respondents are duty-bound to consider and decide representations placed before them, either accepting or rejecting the representation, by passing a reasoned order. 5. It is a settled position of law that every statutory or Government authority, upon receipt of a representation or application, is required to apply its - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 mind, take a decision within a reasonable period, and communicate such decision to the affected party by way of a speaking order. Administrative authorities cannot cite the pendency of judicial proceedings as a justification for inaction, particularly when the grievance before the Court itself arises from such inaction due to non-consideration of such representations. 6. The explanation offered by the respondents, if accepted, would lead to an anomalous situation where authorities would indefinitely postpone decision-making merely because a writ petition is pending, thereby defeating the very purpose of constitutional remedies and compelling litigants to repeatedly approach this Court. Such an approach is contrary to the principles of good governance, fairness, and accountability, which are integral to the rule of law. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 7. The conduct of the respondents in keeping the representations pending for several years without passing any order whatsoever is arbitrary and cannot be countenanced. Administrative delay of this nature undermines public confidence in governance and results in avoidable litigation before constitutional courts. 8. Respondent No.1 is directed to issue appropriate administrative instructions/circulars to all concerned officers, clarifying that: 8.1. the pendency of any writ petition before this Court shall not, by itself, be treated as a ground to withhold consideration of representations or applications filed prior thereto; and 8.2. unless there is a specific order of stay or restraint passed by a competent court, authorities are obligated to discharge their statutory and administrative duties by passing timely orders. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:3379 WP No. 31271 of 2018 8.3. Such instructions shall be issued within four (4) weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order and shall be duly circulated to all subordinate offices. 9. In that view of the matter, I pass the following:- ORDER i. The writ petition is allowed. Mandamus is issued. ii. Respondent No.3 is directed to consider the representations dated 27.07.2017 and 10.08.2017 at Annexures 'F' and 'H' and pass necessary order thereon within a period of 60 days from the date of receipt of copy of this order. iii. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the entitlement of the petitioner in terms of the representation which will have to be considered by the respondent No.3 in accordance with law. SD/- (SURAJ GOVINDARAJ) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 2 Sl No.: 13