High CourtsSingle Bench(2025) 12 KAR CK 1531

Chandrappa S/O Hanumantappa Bedar vs State Of Karnataka & Ors

Karnataka High Court, Dharwad Bench · Decided on 30 December 2025

HON’BLE JUDGES
R. Nataraj, J
RESULT
Disposed Of
CASE NUMBER
Writ Petition No. 110108 Of 2025 (EDN-RES)

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

7 paragraphs · 366 words

R. Nataraj, J

1.

The petitioner has sought for a writ in the nature of mandamus to direct the respondent No.2 to cancel or withdraw the appointment of the Special Officer and hand over the charge of the School to the petitioner by considering the recommendation made by the respondent No.3 dated 02.12.2025.

2.

The petitioner contends that it had filed a suit O.S. No. 2/2010 for declaration that the Trust created by Smt.Lakshmidevi dated 21.08.2010 is void and illegal and for perpetual injunction restraining the Trustees from interfering with the day-to-day administration of the petitioner-Trust. He contends that the said suit was decreed on 24.04.2018 against which R.F.A. No. 100205/2018 was filed where an interim arrangement is made that the Special Officer should continue till disposal of the appeal. It is contended that R.F.A. No. 100205/2018 was thereafter settled between the parties.

3.

Hence the petitioner submitted an application to respondent No.4 to withdraw the appointment of the Special Officer and hand over possession of the School. The respondent No.4 forwarded the application to respondent No.3 for further action. The respondent No.3 after examining the proposal recommended to the respondent No.2 to cancel appointment of the Special officer. However no action is taken by the respondent No.2 till date and therefore the petitioner is before this Court seeking for a direction to the respondent No.2 to withdraw or cancel appointment of the Special Officer and hand over the charge of the School to the petitioner by considering the recommendation made by the respondent No.3.

4.

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterated the above contentions.

5.

Learned Additional Government Advocate, however, contends that if the request of the petitioner is in accordance with law, the respondent No.2 shall consider the same and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law.

6.

In view of the aforesaid submission of the learned Additional Government Advocate, this Writ Petition stands disposed of directing the respondent No.2 to consider the request of the petitioner and the recommendation made by the respondent NO.3 and dispose of the request of the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order.