Petitioners' Opinions Cannot Be Transcribed Into PIL, Unjustifiable Imposition On Judicial Time — Karnataka High Court Dismisses Ward Renaming Petition With ₹5K Cost
Isabella Mariam
The High Court of Karnataka Division Bench of Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru and Justice C.M. Poonacha dismissed a Public Interest Litigation filed by residents and a temple trust challenging a government notification that named a municipal ward 'Beereshwaranagara', seeking instead its designation as 'Chunchaghatta'. The Court determined that the naming of a ward does not infringe upon any fundamental rights of the petitioners or any other person, and that a personal preference or opinion held by citizens regarding a ward's name cannot be elevated to the status of a public interest litigation. Imposing costs of Rs. 5,000/- payable to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority, the Court characterized the petition as an unjustifiable burden on judicial time.
The petitioners, comprising a temple trust and several local residents, instituted a Public Interest Litigation challenging a final notification dated 19.11.2025 issued by the Under Secretary to the Urban Development Department concerning Ward No.43, “Beereshwaranagara.” The petition was filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ of certiorari to quash the notification and to rename the ward as “Chunchaghatta.”
Also Read: Monetary Compensation To Victim Cannot Substitute Punishment In Heinous Offences: Supreme Court
According to the petition, the impugned notification retained the name “Beereshwaranagara” for Ward No.43. The petitioners sought a declaration that Ward No.43 should prevail as “Chunchaghatta” instead of “Beereshwaranagara.” The respondents included the State of Karnataka through the Urban Development Department, the Under Secretary to Government, the Greater Bengaluru Authority, and the Delimitation Committee.
The matter was placed before a Division Bench during preliminary hearing. The grievance centered solely on the naming of the ward and the prayer to substitute the existing name with another.
The Division Bench, speaking through the Chief Justice, recorded that “The petitioners have filed the present petition as a Public Interest Litigation [PIL], inter alia, impugning the notification dated 19.11.2025 bearing No.UDO-293-BBS/2025, passed by respondent No.3, with regard to Ward No.43-‘Beereshwaranagara’ Ward.”
The Court further recorded that “The petitioners seek that the said ward be renamed as ‘Chunchaghatta’.” Addressing the substance of the grievance, the Bench observed, “First of all, we find that no fundamental rights of the petitioners or any other person are violated by naming the ward as Beereshwaranagara.”
The Court then stated, “Whereas, the petitioners may be of the opinion that the ward in question should be named as Chunchaghatta Ward, clearly, this is not a cause which should engage the judicial time of this Court.”
The Bench also recorded, “Any opinion that the petitioners may have or any thought that may pass through their mind cannot be transcribed into a public interest litigation.” Concluding its reasoning, the Court observed, “This is an unjustifiable imposition on judicial time.”
The Court directed: “In view of the above, the present petition is dismissed with costs quantified at Rs.5,000/-. The costs shall be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within a period of two (02) weeks from date.”
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Petitioners: Smt. K. Shobha, Advocate
For the Respondents: Smt. Niloufer Akbar, AGA; Sri B.L. Sanjeev, Advocate.
Case Title: Sri Renuka Yallamma Temple Trust & Ors. v. State of Karnataka & Ors.
Neutral Citation: NC: 2026: KHC:8144-DB
Case Number: Writ Petition No. 2923 of 2026
Bench: Chief Justice Vibhu Bakhru, Justice C.M. Poonacha
