Back
2026 Supreme(Kar) 107
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
M.G.S.KAMAL, J.
Muhiyudeen Juma Masjid, Rep. by its President Shri K. Ismail S/o Ibrahim – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 20111 of 2022
Decided On : 06-01-2026
For the Appellant : Ravishankar Shastry G.
For the Respondent: B.P. Radha
Notices impacting rights must be based on substantiated evidence and proper due process. Allegations without foundation cannot justify administrative action or inaction.
Headnote:(A) Writ Jurisdiction - Quashing of Notice - The petitioner sought to quash a notice regarding construction work suspension due to allegations of forgery and encroachment, against which the Criminal Case was found unsubstantiated - Cited representation having not been considered by authorities. (Paras 1, 11, 13, 14)
(B) Administrative Due Process - The petitioner argued the notice was issued without due process and without a fair enquiry, negating the basis for it. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a minority institution funded for Community Hall construction, faced action following a complaint of forgery leading to a halt in construction without proper enquiry or justification.
Findings of Court:
The Court quashed the notice for lack of justification, affirming that the petitioner’s representations must be heard by the authorities.
Issues: Whether the notice to stop construction was valid given the unsubstantiated allegations and absence of due process?
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that notices impacting rights must be based on concrete evidence and proper process, and that unsustained allegations cannot justify action against the petitioner.
Result: Notice quashed; authority to consider representations.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. seeking quashing and direction for action. (Para 1) |
| 2. factual context of construction and complaint. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 3. interim order preventing escalation. (Para 6) |
| 4. petitioner's argument against notice validity. (Para 7) |
| 5. respondent's defense against petitioner's claims. (Para 8) |
| 6. court's review of alleged evidence and justifications. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12) |
| 7. quashing of notice due to lack of justification. (Para 13) |
| 8. order for consideration of representations. (Para 14 , 15) |
ORDER :
1. The petitioner-Institution is before this Court seeking following reliefs :
(i) issuance of writ of certiorari quashing the order dated 29.06.2022 in No.ASAM/SHAMA/CR-133/16-17/160/189 passed by the Deputy Commissioner for Minority Welfare Department, Mangaluru, Dakshina Kannada District, copy of which is produced at Annexure-A.
(ii) issuance of writ of mandamus directing the Assistant Executive Engineer, Panchayat Raj Engineering Division, Bantwal Sub Division, Bantwal, Dakshina to consider the representation dated 28.02.2022 copy of which is produced at Annexure-H.
(iii) issuance any other writs or direction to meet the interest of justice and equity.
2. The petitioner-Institution had been sanctioned a sum of Rs.50,00,000/- from the Minority Welfare Department for the purpose of construction of a Community Hall. Part of the sanctioned amount was released. Apparently, after obtaining necessary permission from the concerned Panchayath, the petitioner had commenced construction of the Community Hall. However, upon a complaint filed by one K.Abdul Razak of alleged forging of the records, a Criminal Case came to be registered on 25.05.2019 against the members of the petitioner-Institution.
3. When things stood thus, a notice dated 23.01.2019 came to be issued by Respondent No.2 calling the petitioner to submit the report of the Assistant Executive Engineer (AEE) showing the valuation of the work already done. The petitioner had, in turn, by letter dated 31.01.2019, requested the AEE of the Panchayath Raj Engineer, Bantwal Sub Division to issue a Valuation Report regarding the completion of the work done. There was no response to the said request made by the petitioner. That, on 21.01.2022, Respondent No.2 had issued a notice to the Petitioner-Institution contending that, though a sum of Rs.25,00,000/- was released, the petitioner had stopped the construction and directed the petitioner to complete the construction immediately and submit the report of the Authorised Engineer, with the photographs to be submitted to the Respondent No.2, failing which, necessary proceedings to recover the amount would be initiated.
4. In response, the petitioner had informed that, due to lack of funds, construction work had stopped and thereafter, request made by the petitioner to the AEE to furnish the status report was also not considered. Under the circumstances, the petitioner, by representation dated 28.02.2022 (Annexure-G), had requested the Deputy Commissioner to make the spot inspection, verify and evaluate the construction done and to release further amount, which was further followed by another representation dated 25.04.2022 addressed to the Deputy Commissioner. But, without considering the requests made by the petitioner to the Deputy Commissioner as well as to the AEE to conduct the spot inspection, a Notice dated 07.04.2022 (Annexure-J) came to be issued by respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner directing the petitioner to submit the explanation along with the affidavit of the AEE, failing which, was threatened to initiate action to recover the amount already released.
5. The petitioner issued reply to the Respondent No.2-Deputy Commissioner stating that, a sum exceeding Rs.50,00,000/- was already spent for construction and also bringing to his notice that, the AEE has refused to issue Valuation Report on the ground of police complaint being filed and pending enquiry, thus expressing his helplessness to comply with the requirement of s
