Karnataka High Court
Smt. B N Poornima vs State Of Karnataka on 25 November, 2025
-1-
NC: 2025:KHC:48687
WP No. 12683 of 2022
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 25TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
WRIT PETITION NO.12683 OF 2022 (GM-R/C)
BETWEEN:
1. SMT. B N POORNIMA
W/O JAGADESH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
RESIDING AT #6/39,
ADARSHA NAGARA
CHAMARAJAPETE,
9TH CROSS, 4TH MAIN,
BENGALURU - 560018.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. RAVISHANKAR SHASTRY G., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. STATE OF KARNATAKA
Digitally signed by BY ITS UNDER SECRETARY TO
ARUNKUMAR M S
Location: HIGH DEPARTMENT REVENUE,
COURT OF (DEPARTMENT OF HINDU RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS
KARNATAKA
AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMNENTS)
M.S BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD,
BENGALURU - 560001.
2. COMMISSIONER FOR HINDU RELIGIOUS
INSTITUTIONS AND CHARITABLE ENDOWMENTS
4TH FLOOR, MINTO SHRI ANAJANEYA BHAVANA
ALOOR VENKATA RAO ROAD,
-2-
NC: 2025:KHC:48687
WP No. 12683 of 2022
HC-KAR
CHAMARAJPETE
BENGLAURU - 560018.
3. THE COMMISSIONER FOR PERSONS WITH
DISABILITIES IN KARNATAKA
NO.55, II FLOOR,
ABHAYA SANKEERNA
RESALDAR STREET,
KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560020.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 & R2;
SRI. AMARANATHA H.K., ADVOCATE)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
QUASH THE ORDER DATED 14.01.2022 IN GOVT. ORDER
NO.KAM E 45 MU A B 2017, BENGALURU PASSED BY THE
RESPONDENT NO.1 ORIGINAL COPY OF WHICH IS PRODUCED
AT ANNEXURE-A; AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH
ORAL ORDER
In this writ petition, the petitioner is challenging
the order dated 14.01.2022 passed by respondent
No.1 produced at Annexure-A, inter-alia sought for
direction to respondent No.2, for implementation of
NC: 2025:KHC:48687
HC-KAR
direction issued by respondent No.1 vide Annexure-G
dated 17.06.2020.
2. It the grievance of the petitioner that, the
petitioner is person with disability as per the Disability
Certificate issued at Annexure-D, and in this regard,
the respondent-authorities had notified certain vacant
spaces available in Sri Rameshwara Swamy Temple,
Chamarajapete, Bengaluru, for the purpose of leasing
them out to run a canteen near the Kalyana Mantapa.
Considering the application submitted by the
petitioner, permission was granted to him to run the
canteen in terms of the order dated 05.12.2017
(Annexure-B). However, the said permission has been
withdrawn by the respondent-authorities under the
impugned order dated 14.01.2022 (Annexure-A).
Aggrieved by the same, the petitioner has filed the
present writ petition.
NC: 2025:KHC:48687
HC-KAR
3. Heard Sri. Ravishankar Shastry, G., learned
counsel for the petitioner; Sri. Mahantesh Shettar,
learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for
the respondent-State and Sri. Amaranatha H.K.,
learned counsel appearing for the respondent No.3.
4. Sri. Ravishankar Shastry G., learned counsel
appearing for the petitioner submitted that the
petitioner is having disability and therefore, there is
no impediment in granting lease of the premises in
question to the petitioner, however, same has been
withdrawn illegally by an order at Annexure-A and
therefore, sought for interference of this Court.
5. Per contra, Sri. Mahantesh Shettar, learned
Additional Government Advocate appearing for the
respondent-State sought to justify the impugned order
at Annexure-A by referring to the judgment of the
Division Bench of this Court in W.P.No.20792 of 2009
NC: 2025:KHC:48687
HC-KAR
decided on 31.10.2011, wherein, this court, has
observed that the an immovable properties of the
respondent-authorities can be leased only through
public auction and accordingly, sought for dismissal of
the writ petition.
6. In light of the rival submissions and upon
perusal of the material on record, it is evident that
there is no provision permitting the lease of premises
belonging to respondent No.2 without conducting a
public auction. Following the declaration of this Court
in the aforementioned judgment and having regard to
the reasons assigned by respondent No.2 in
Annexure-A, particularly that there is scarcity of space
in the temple premises, the withdrawal of the earlier
permission cannot be faulted. Respondent No. 2 has
specifically stated that no space is available in the
temple area for running a canteen.
NC: 2025:KHC:48687
HC-KAR
7. In that view of the matter, I find no merit in
the writ petition. Hence, no interference is called for in
this writ petition. In the result, the writ petition
stands dismissed.
SD/-
(E.S.INDIRESH)
JUDGE
SB
