IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD WRIT PETITION NO. 36988 OF 2015 (GM-RES)

BETWEEN:

R. PRAVEEN S/O P.RAMESH, AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS, R/AT NO.183, SANTRUPATHI NILAYA, KRS ROAD, OPP KEB, DOLLARS COLONY, PANDAVAPURA-571434, MANDYA DISTRICT.

…PETITIONER Digitally (BY SRI. M N MADHUSUDHAN.,ADVOCATE)

signed by VANAMALA AND:

N Location: 1. UNION OF INDIA HIGH REPRESENTED BY ITS COURT OF PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO KARNATAKA ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, MINISTRY OF ROAD TRANSPORT AND HIGHWAYS, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, 1, PARLIAMENT STREET, NEW DELHI-110001.

2. THE CHAIRMAN NATIONAL HIGHWAYS AUTHORITY OF INDIA (NHAI)

DWARKA,NEW DELHI-110045.

3. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB-DIVISION BELLUR CROSS, NAGAMANGALA TALUK, MANDYA DISTRICT-571434.

4. THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER PUBLIC WORK DEPARTMENT SUB DIVISION PANDAVAPURA NO.7 BETTAHALLI ROAD PANDAVAPURA TOWN PANDAVAPURA - 571 434.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI SANGAMESH G PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R1;

BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R2 TO R4)

THIS W.P. IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND

227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE RECORDS QUASH THE NOTICE DATED 21/22.08.2015 ISSUED BY THE R-3 VIDE ANNEXURE G TO THE WRIT PETITION.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

ORAL ORDER

The question for consideration in the present petition is whether there must be any interference with the fourth respondent's Communication dated 21/22.08.2015 [Annexure-G]. The fourth respondent has issued this communication informing the petitioner that he has begun illegal construction of a petrol retail outlet in Sy. No. 74/1A of Pandavapura Town, Kasaba Hobli, Pandavapura Taluk, Mandya District without the requisite buffer and without obtaining any permission and therefore he must stop the work forthwith.

2. This Court, on 03.09.2015, has granted interim order restraining the original respondents viz., Union of India and the National Highway Authorities of India [NHAI] and its officers from interfering with the construction of the petrol retail outlet. This order has been in force in all these years, and admittedly, the petitioner has completed the construction of the retail outlet which has been in operation for over eight years.

3. The question presented for consideration, as aforesaid, is examined in the light of the afore and the following:

[a] The fourth respondent's impugned communication is in the light of the proposal for notifying 'State Highway No.19' as 'National Highway No. 150A' and the survey that was underway to identify the required area for widening with road shoulder on either side.

[b] It is undisputed that the Guidelines issued by the NHAI mandates that there must be a buffer at a distance of forty metres from the centre of the Highway to the edge of the building line.

[c] The construction of the Highway is now complete. The NHAI is categorical before this Court that the jurisdictional authority would be the fourth respondent and that it cannot answer the grievance raised by the petitioner.

4. This Court has called upon Sri V Shivareddy, the learned Additional Government Advocate, to secure instructions with a pass over, and on instructions from the jurisdictional Tahsildar, the learned Additional Government Advocate submits that the construction of the road as a National Highway is complete and that the building line between the construction in the petitioner's property and the center of the Highway is over fifty metres, and as such, there would be no hindrance for the continuance of the retail outlet on the ground that some portion of the construction would be within the prescribed buffer. This Court finds that these circumstances justify an interference with the fourth respondent's order. Hence, the following:

ORDER

The petition is allowed, and the fourth respondent's communication dated

21/22.08.