SOUTH INDIA AMUSEMENTS vs THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
TH
DATED THIS THE 14 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
BEFORE
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
WRIT PETITION NO. 31870 OF 2026 (LB-BMP)
BETWEEN:
SOUTH INDIA AMUSEMENTS
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR,
SRI. SHIVAKUMAR
S/O LATE SHAMBULINGAPPA,
AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS,
C/O GROUND FLOOR, AY NO 2618/1690.
BACK SIDE OF KUVEMPUNAGAR BUS STAND,
MUDIGERE, MUDIGERE TALUK,
CHIKKAMAGALURU DISTRICT - 577132.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SUDHINDRA S A.,ADVOCATE)
Digitally
signed by
VANAMALA
N
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
AND:
1. THE GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY
REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER,
N.R. SQUARE,
BENGALURU - 560002.
2. THE COMMISSIONER,
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY,
N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU 560002.
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER,
WHITEFIELD SUB-DIVISION,
GREATER BENGALURU AUTHORITY,
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560066.
4. SBP AMUSEMENT
REPRESENTED BY ITS PROPRIETOR
SRI. CHANDAN GOWDA,
AGED ABOUT - 28 YEARS,
S/O RAMESH GOWDA, A
R/AT NO.129, RAMESH BUILDING,
NEAR AQUA NAGONDANAHALLI COLONY,
WHITEFIELD, BENGALURU - 560067.
5. SATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE-560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.PAWAN KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R1 RO R3;
SRI. CHINMAY KURANGAWAD., ADVOCATE FOR R4;
SRI. RAJAYOGA., HCGP FOR R5)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO
A) QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 11.08.2026
VIDE ๅೖಉเ ඪಆฑ ನಂ
¸ÀA.UÉæÃ.¨ÉA.¥Áæ/ E / ¸ÀPÁC/ / .253/2026-27
ANNEXURE-G BEARING P.R. NO.253/2026-27 ISSUED
BY RESPONDENT NO.3 IN FAVOUR OF RESPONDENT
NO.4; B) DIRECTING RESPONDENT NOS.1 TO 3 TO
CONSIDER THE PETITIONER'S APPLICATION/REQUEST
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
DATED 16.01.2026, DULY ACKNOWLEDGED UNDER
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT NO.1601 DATED 16.01.2026,
VIDE ANNEXURE-E, GRANT PERMISSION FOR
CONDUCTING AMUSEMENT ACTIVITIES AT
WHITEFIELD PLAYGROUND.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS
DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD
ORAL ORDER
The petitioner's grievance is with the third
respondent's Order dated 11.08.2026 [Annexure-G].
The third respondent, by this impugned Order, has
granted the fourth respondent license to conduct a
Fair/Exhibition between 10.10.2026 and 25.10.2026
for the upcoming festivities under Section 303(1)(l) of
the Geater Bengaluru Governance Act, 2024 [for
short ‘ the Act’ ]. The third respondent has permitted
the fourth respondent to utilize the open ground
within the limits of Whitefield Sub-division during
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
this period on certain terms and subject to payment
of a certain Fee .
2. The petitioner contends that there must
be directions to the respondents to consider his
application dated 16.01.2026 and to permit him to
use this open ground during the same period for the
festivities. Mr. S.A. Sudhindra, the learned counsel
for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner's
application dated 16.01.2026 [ as acknowledged ] is
prior in time because the respondent's application is
only dated 10.06.2026, but the third respondent has
issued the license to the fourth respondent arbitrarily
for reasons that are not justifiable overlooking the
petitioner’s application.
3. Mr. Chinmay G. Kurandwad, the learned
counsel for the fourth respondent, submits that this
Court may consider refusing to intervene when it is
not in dispute that the fourth respondent has already
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
commenced the use of the open field for the purposes
for which the license is issued; that the fourth
respondent has remitted a substantial sum of
Rs.1,19,080/- as way back as in August 2026 and
that this respondent has also extended himself
financially to build the necessary infrastructure for
the occasion. Ms. Chandini S, a learned High Court
Government Pleader and Mr. Pawan Kumar, a
learned Standing Counsel for the Greater Bengaluru
Authority, are heard in these circumstances for the
disposal of the petition.
4. This Court could examine whether the
third respondent has exercised jurisdiction to issue
license to utilize a public facility in a transparent and
open manner. In the absence of any reference to
publication inviting applications for issuance of
license, this Court may even infer that the third
respondent's decision is not after the publication of
any notice inviting applications so that offers received
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
are considered in a transparent manner with the
optimization of the revenue for the exchequer. The
third respondent’s jurisdiction to issue license under
Section 303 of the Act is also called in question.
5. However, in the present circumstances,
this Court is not inclined to grant any relief, on the
afore aspects to the petitioner as against the third
respondent's decision to admit the fourth respondent
to license by the impugned order because of the
delay. The petitioner's application is in January
2026, and the fourth respondent's application is in
June 2026. The remittance by the fourth respondent
is in the second week of August 2026 with the
simultaneous grant of the subject license. The
petitioner has not approached this Court until
05.10.2026 when inarguably the fourth respondent
could have mobilized the resources to create
necessary infrastructure.
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
6. This Court must hasten to observe that
the third respondent lest be censured or other action
taken must ensure that if license is to be granted in
the future, subject to the delegation of power to
exercise jurisdiction under Section 303 of the Act,
notices are published inviting applications from all
the concerned and that those applications are
considered transparently on a set of guidelines which
are part of the publication inviting applications.
Hence, the following:
ORDER
[A] The petition stands disposed of.
[B] The petitioner is reserved with liberty to
file a certified copy of this Order with the
third respondent, and the petitioner is also
reserved with liberty to invoke this Court's
jurisdiction if there is any default in
compliance with this Court observations
on the procedure to be followed.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC:57961
WP No. 31870 of 2026
CNR: KAHC010694592026
[C] The petitioner is also reserved with liberty
to file a certified copy of this Order with
the second respondent who is called upon
to instruct the Commissioner, Bengaluru
East City Corporation, Bengaluru to
examine the third respondent’s jurisdiction
to issue license under the Act and that
there is due compliance with this Court's
directions on publication of notice inviting
applications as aforesaid.
SD/-
(B M SHYAM PRASAD)
JUDGE
AN/-