VoxJuris
Home › High Courts › Karnataka High Court 2026 › High Court of Karnataka

Mr.Vamana Bhat v. Mr.Rajesh @ Rajesh Pavithran

DISPOSED
Court
High Court of Karnataka
Decided
15 April 2026
Bench
C.M. Poonachaauthor
Case no.
WA 202/2025

Follow Karnataka High CourtFollow C.M. Poonacha

Judgment

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

WRIT APPEAL NO. 202 OF 2025 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

¶1MR. VAMANA BHAT AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS RESIDING AT SURABHI OPP. PARIVAR OLDAGE HOME NEAR ASHRAYA YUVA VEDIKE ASHRAYA NAGARA, KADAMBODI SURATHKAL - 575 014 MANGALURU …APPELLANT (BY SRI AKSHATHA SHETTY K., ADVOCATE)

AND:

¶1MR.RAJESH @ RAJESH PAVITHRAN AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS RESIDING AT NO.6-122-7 KULAI MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT: 575 019

¶2THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINISTRY OF HOME

Digitally signed by AMBIKA H B Location: High Court of Karnataka

VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560 001

¶3THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR DEPARTMENT OF WOMEN AND CHILD DEVELOPMENT MANGALURU DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT …RESPONDENTS (SMT. NAMITHA MAHESH B.G., ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-2 & 3)

THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 30/07/2024 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.21239/2022 AND TO ALLOW THE IMPLEADING APPLICATION FILED BY THE APPELLANT & ETC.

THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA

ORAL JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE)

¶1The appellant has filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.21239/2022 (GM-RES). We note, at the outset, that

the present appeal has been filed after a delay of 159 days. Although the delay may not be very large, however in the context of the impugned order, the same may be relevant.

¶2The above mentioned writ petition was filed by respondent No.1, inter alia, praying that directions be issued to the concerned authorities to consider his application for renewal of the registration of an old age home in the name of The Saffron Foundation and Parivar Home for the Aged located at Ashrayanagar, Surathkal near Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District. The learned Single Judge had allowed the petition with a direction to the concerned authorities to consider the writ petitioner's representation and pass appropriate orders after affording the writ petitioner an opportunity to be heard.

¶3The appellant is not a party to the said writ petition. However, he had filed an application for impleadment. The appellant is essentially aggrieved by the impugned order to the extent that it disposes of the writ petition without considering the appellant's application for impleadment in the said petition.

¶4It is contented on behalf of the appellant that respondent No.1 has been operating the old age home illegally and it is stated that the appellant has certain documents which may be relevant for deciding whether the writ petitioner's representation ought to be favourably considered.

¶5We note that since the learned Single Judge has allowed the writ petition only on the ground that the writ petitioner was not given a sufficient opportunity and on a concession of the learned counsel for the State Authorities that a fair opportunity would be granted to the writ petitioner.

¶6In this view, we consider it apposite to dispose of the present appeal by permitting the appellant to also submit any representation or document to oppose the grant of registration to the concerned authorities.

¶7We, however, clarify that the same would be considered only if the writ petitioner's application has not been disposed of, as yet. The present order would not be construed as directing the concerned authorities to re-look at the decision already rendered.

We also clarify that this order will not be considered as precluding the appellant from availing any remedy in accordance with law.

¶8The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

¶9The pending interlocutory applications also stand disposed of.

Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/- (C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE

AHB List No.: 2 Sl No.: 30

Source: High Court of Karnataka, through the eCourts High Court services, via the Indian High Court Judgments open dataset by Dattam Labs (CC BY 4.0). Text was extracted from the official PDF and may contain conversion errors. Check the official PDF before relying on it.