Karnataka High Court
The State Of Karnataka vs Punashchetana Seva Samste on 6 November, 2025
Author: S G Pandit
Bench: S G Pandit
-1-
Writ Appeal No.100694/2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, AT DHARWAD
DATED THIS THE 6th DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
WRIT APPEAL NO.100694 OF 2025(GM RES)
BETWEEN:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS
CHIEF SECRETARY,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY UNDER SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
(LAW AND ORDER),
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
VINAYAKA
BV
Digitally signed by
VINAYAKA B V
Location: HIGH COURT
OF KARNATAKA
3. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY THE
DHARWAD BENCH
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
4. THE DIRECTOR GENERAL AND
INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE,
KARNATAKA STATE POLICE
HEADQUARTERS, NRUPATHUNGA ROAD,
BENGALURU-560 001.
-2-
Writ Appeal No.100694/2025
5. THE COMMISSIONER OF POLICE,
DHARWAD CITY,
DHARWAD-580 001.
6. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
DHARWAD DISTRICT,
DHARWAD-580 001.
7. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF LAW AND PARLIAMENTARY
AFFAIRS, VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...APPELLANTS
(BY SRI. SHASHIKIRAN SHETTY, ADVOCATE GENERAL, ALONG
WITH SMT. ANISHKA VAISHNAV, ADVOCATE
SRI. GANGADHAR J.M., AAG; SRI. KIRAN RON, AAG AND
SRI. SHARAD V. MAGADUM, AGA)
AND:
1. PUNASHCHETANA SEVA SAMSTE,
(A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT)
HOUSE NO.35, SHAKTI NAGAR,
GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI.
BY ITS PRESIDENT,
VINAYAK S/O RAM GUNAGA,
AGE. 53 YEARS, R/O HOUSE NO.35,
SHAKTI NAGAR, GOKUL ROAD,
HUBBALLI-580 020.
2. WE CARE FOUNDATION
(A REGISTERED SOCIETY UNDER THE
PROVISIONS OF KARNATAKA SOCIETIES
REGISTRATION ACT)
GHANTIKERI ONI, HUBBALLI,
DISTRICT DHARWAD-580 020.
BY ITS PRESIDENT
-3-
Writ Appeal No.100694/2025
GANGADHARAYYA GUJAMAGADI,
AGE. 62 YEARS.
3. RAJEEV MALHAR PATILKULKARNI
AGE. 62 YEARS, OCC. BUSINESS,
R/O 3RD CROSS,
RAYARAMATHA GOULI GALLI,
MALMADDI, DHARWAD-580 001.
4. UMA SATYAJIT CHAVAN
AGE. 61 YEARS,
OCC. SOCIAL WORKER,
R/O 1143, NEAR 2ND WATER TANK,
SANGAM NAGAR, VTC,
BELAGAVI-590 001.
5. THE COMMISSIONER,
HUBLI DHARWAD MUNICIPAL
CORPORATION,
HUBBALLI-580 008.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. ASHOK HARNALLI, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR
SRI. MALLIKARJUNSWAMY B. HIREMATH, ADVOCATES
FOR C/R2 & R4)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S.4 OF KARNATAKA HIGH
COURT ACT, 1961, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 28.10.2025 PASSED IN W.P.NO.107929 OF 2025
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE
COURT & ETC.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
ON 04.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT OF
JUDGMENT THIS DAY, S G PANDIT J., DELIVERED THE
FOLLOWING:
-4-
Writ Appeal No.100694/2025
CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MRS JUSTICE GEETHA K.B.
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S G PANDIT)
The above appeal under Section 4 of the Karnataka High
Court Act, 1961 by the State of Karnataka, represented by
Secretary as well as Chief Secretary to Government, Home
Department and other State authorities, is directed against an
ex parte interim order dated 28.10.2025 passed in W.P.
No.107929/2025 whereby learned Single Judge stayed the
operation of the impugned Government Order dated
18.10.2025 (Annexure-A to the writ petition).
2. The parties would be referred to as they stood
before the learned Single Judge for the sake of convenience.
The appellants herein were the respondents and respondents
No.1 to 4 herein were the petitioners before the learned Single
Judge.
3. The petitioners approached the learned Single Judge
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to
quash the Government Order dated 18.10.2025 (Annexure-A)
and also for a writ of mandamus restraining the respondents,
their officers and subordinates from enforcing, implementing or
acting upon the said Government Order. In the writ petition,
petitioners also prayed for an interim order to stay enforcement
of the impugned Government Order dated 18.10.2025.
4. Under Annexure-A - Government Order dated
18.10.2025, the "Government property", "Competent
authority", "Organization", and "Procession or Rally" are
defined. "Procession or Rally" means congregation of more than
10 people called by any name, who are accompanied by music
or otherwise, any other activity having a common object to
carry on a common movement or route march passing through
a Government property except marriage and funeral gatherings
and movements. Further, the Government Order would require
obtaining prior written permission from the competent
authorities for such congregation of 10 or more people. It also
states that the unauthorized gathering shall be treated as
unlawful assembly under the Bharatiya Nyaya Samhita (BNS),
2023 and jurisdictional police officers shall take steps to
prevent the occurrence of non-cognizable offence and, in the
event of any occurrence of offence, then the jurisdictional
police shall register a case either upon information of other
person or suo motu under the provisions of BNS, 2023.
5. The learned Single Judge, on 28.10.2025, when the
writ petition was listed for 'Preliminary Hearing', upon hearing
the learned counsel for the petitioners, directed the learned
Additional Government Advocate to accept notice for
respondents No.1 to 7 and passed the interim order staying the
impugned Government Order dated 18.10.2025. While passing
the interim order of stay, the learned Single Judge observed
that the impugned Government Order runs contrary to Article
13(2) of the Constitution of India, and further it is observed
that it also takes away the fundamental right under Article
19(1)(a) and (b). The learned Single Judge has also observed
that when there are provisions to safeguard the situation or the
situation like stated in the Government Order or when the field
is occupied by the Karnataka Police Act, by way of an
administrative order, the Government could not have curtailed
the fundamental rights. Questioning the said ex parte interim
order, the State authorities are before this Court in this appeal.
6. Heard learned Advocate General, Sri. Shashikiran
Shetty, along with learned Additional Advocate Generals
Sri. Kiran Ron and Sri. Gangadhar J.M., appearing for the
appellants, and the learned Senior Counsel, Sri. Ashok
Haranahalli along with learned counsel Sri. Mallikarjunswamy
B.Hiremath, appearing for caveator/respondents. Perused the
entire writ appeal papers.
7. Learned Advocate General, Sri. Shashikiran Shetty
submitted that the State has taken a decision to protect the
property of the State and State's interests, and has passed the
impugned Government Order. It is submitted that it is the
bounden duty of the State to protect its property and he further
submits that though the public property could be used by
public, the same cannot be used without permission. Learned
Advocate General would submit that the impugned Government
Order would not prohibit the use of the public property, but it
only requires taking permission for such use. It is submitted
that the impugned Government Order is passed in the larger
public interest. Further, learned Advocate General would submit
that the petitioners cannot utilize or use the public property for
their individual interests and the present petition is in the garb
of public interest. It is also submitted that the petitioners have
no fundamental right to utilize the assets of the State
Government for holding of any private programmes or private
functions. Referring to the averments of the writ petition, it is
submitted that the petitioners cannot utilize the parks for their
own individual functions. It is specifically contended that the
interim order granted by the learned Single Judge is in the
nature of a final order.
8. Learned Advocate General places reliance on the
decision of the Hon'ble Apex Court in Railway Board,
representing the Union of India Vs. Niranjan Singh1 to
specifically contend that there is no fundamental right for
anyone to hold meetings in government premises. Learned
Advocate General also places reliance on the decision of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in Rai Sahib Ram Jawaya Kapur and
others Vs. State of Punjab2 to contend that the executive
function comprises both, determination of policy as well as
(1969) 1 SCC 502
(1955) 1 SCC 553
carrying it into execution. Thus, learned Advocate General
would pray for allowing the appeal.
9. Per contra, learned Senior Counsel Sri. Ashok
Haranahalli would submit that the writ appeal against an ex
parte interim order itself is not maintainable as they have the
remedy of filing an interlocutory application for vacating the
interim order. It is submitted that, without filing the
interlocutory application for vacating interim order, the State
could not have approached this Court by way of writ appeal.
Learned Senior Counsel would further submit that the
Karnataka Police Act covers the situations, which are
contemplated under the impugned Government Order and he,
further submits that, by virtue of executive order, right of
citizens cannot be curtailed. Further, learned Senior Counsel
would submit that whether the Government Order is violative of
Article 19 of the Constitution of India or any other provisions, is
yet to be decided by the learned Single Judge and if the
contentions raised by the appellants herein are considered and
decided in this appeal, nothing would remain before the learned
Single Judge for decision. The learned Senior Counsel would
- 10 -
also submit that the State holds the public property in trust and
use of such public property by general public cannot be
prohibited or restricted without following the provisions of the
Karnataka Police Act. Thus, he would pray for dismissal of the
writ appeal.
10. Having heard the learned Advocate General and the
learned Senior Counsel for the parties and on perusal of the
entire writ appeal papers, we are not inclined to interfere with
the impugned ex parte interim order passed by the learned
Single Judge which is the subject matter of this appeal.
11. A perusal of the interim order indicates that the
learned Single Judge, while directing the learned Additional
Government Advocate to accept notice for the respondents, has
passed the interim order staying the impugned Government
Order and, while passing the said ex parte interim order, the
learned Single Judge prima facie has observed that the
impugned Government Order runs contrary to Article 13(2) of
the Constitution and thereby takes away the fundamental right
under Article 19(1)(a) and (b) of the Constitution. Further,
learned Single Judge has observed that allowing the
- 11 -
Government Order to operate would prima facie mean, to
permit liberty granted to the citizens under Article 19(1)(a) and
(b) of the Constitution to be taken away by an executive order.
The learned Single Judge has also fixed the date for further
hearing on 17.11.2025 at 2.30 p.m.
12. The contention of the learned Senior Counsel for the
caveator/respondents that writ appeal against an ex parte
interim order, would not be maintainable is unsustainable and
cannot be accepted. Though Article 226(3) provides for making
an application for vacating the interim order, maintainability of
writ appeal would depend on the facts and circumstances of
each case.
13. Whether the impugned Government Order is
violative of Article 19 of the Constitution or any other provision;
or whether it is arbitrary or unreasonable; or whether by way
of an executive order, rights of the citizens could be curtailed,
is yet to be determined. The observation of the learned Single
Judge is only prima facie. Considering the above contentions of
the appellants/State even before learned Single Judge records
his finding would amount to usurping the jurisdiction of the
- 12 -
learned Single Judge and if considered, nothing would remain
for consideration by the learned Single Judge. The appellants
have not filed their statement of objections. The decisions
referred to by the learned Advocate General shall have to be
considered at the time of disposal of the writ petition. When the
appellants have a remedy of filing an interlocutory application
for vacating the interim order and when the learned Single
Judge has fixed the date for further hearing on 17.11.2025, it
would not be appropriate for this Court to interfere with the ex
parte interim order passed by the learned Single Judge.
14. Learned Advocate General submitted that the parks
and playgrounds maintained by Government/local authorities/
corporations cannot be utilized by private organization for their
private event and to curtail such utilization, the impugned
Government Order is passed, and if the interim order is
continued, it would be difficult for the State to regulate such
activity. The said submission is not worth accepting since the
provisions of Karnataka Police Act provides for such a situation
and the State could regulate the use of parks and playgrounds
or any other public property on the existing provisions of law.
- 13 -
15. It is open for the appellants to file an application for
vacating interim order and if such an application is filed, we are
sure that the learned Single Judge would consider the said
application for vacating stay or would take up the writ petition
for final disposal.
16. All contentions of the parties are left open
For the reasons recorded above, the writ appeal stands
dismissed.
Sd/-
(S G PANDIT)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(GEETHA K.B.)
JUDGE
KMS
