Karnataka High Court Administrative and Public Law Civil Procedure and Evidence

239 Petitioners Withdraw Karnataka HC Case After Agreeing To Settle With Bengaluru Divinity LLP, With Liberty To Return If It Defaults

By LawLens Team · Editorial and Research TeamDecided October 28, 2026Published 2 November 2026 at 5:38 pm IST1 min read

The LawLens card for this judgment

In brief

The question

1. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition in view of the settlement with respondent No. 6

The court held

The writ petition was dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty to the petitioners as sought in the joint memo to revive the proceedings or seek appropriate relief if respondent No. 6 failed to comply with the settlement.

It also directed

Any pending interlocutory applications were also disposed of.

01Facts

The petitioners invoked Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, seeking, among other reliefs, a direction to the authorities to consider their representations dated 19 August 2024 and 4 September 2024.

p. 52

During the proceedings, the petitioners and respondent No. 6 filed a joint memo stating that they had amicably settled the dispute and that the petitioners no longer wished to pursue the writ petition. They sought permission to withdraw it, with liberty to revive the proceedings or seek appropriate relief if respondent No. 6 failed to comply with the settlement.

p. 53

02Issues

i.1. Whether the petitioners should be permitted to withdraw the writ petition in view of the settlement with respondent No. 6

p. 53

ii.2. Whether the petitioners should be granted liberty to revive the proceedings or seek appropriate relief in the event of non-compliance with the settlement

p. 53

03Law Applied

The order does not discuss or apply any substantive statutory provision, precedent, or legal doctrine.

pp. 52–54

The petition was brought under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and the Court considered the parties’ joint request to withdraw the proceedings with the liberty stated in their memo.

pp. 52–54

04Reasoning

The Court recorded that the petitioners and respondent No. 6 had filed a joint memo confirming an amicable settlement and the petitioners’ wish not to prosecute the petition further at that stage.

p. 53

In view of that request, the Court permitted withdrawal with the liberty sought; it did not adjudicate the underlying dispute or determine the merits of the petition.

pp. 53–54