" - 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13723 WP No. 446 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF MARCH, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM WRIT PETITION NO. 446 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. N SHIVAKUMAR S/O LATE NARASAIAH AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS R/AT CHAKUVALLIPALYA HADAVANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 211. 2. SMT. PUTTAMMA W/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 89 YEARS R/AT CHAKUVALLIPALYA HADAVANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 211. 3. SMT. SIDDAGANGAMMA W/O C.N. MANJANNA D/O LATE KARETHIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS R/AT CHAKUVALLIPALYA HADAVANAHALLI POST TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 211. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI PURUSHOTHAMA H.E, ADV.) AND: 1. RAVI H.K REPTD. BY COMPANY HEIDELBERG CEMENT INDIA LIMITED (EARLIER MYSORE CEMENTS LIMITED) AMMASANDRA POST, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 211 Printed from counselvise.com Digitally signed by NANDINI M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13723 WP No. 446 of 2026 REG. UNDER COMPANIES ACT. 2. THE SUB INSPECTOR OF POLICE DANDINASHIVARA POLICE STATION DANDINASHIVARA, TURUVEKERE TALUK TUMAKURU DISTRICT - 572 211. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI ADITYA DIWAKARA, AGA FOR R-2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARITCLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED NOTICES (1) DATED 24.11.2025 NO. HEI.C/72/2025 (2) DATED 24.11.2025 NO. HEI. C/73/202, (3) DATED 19.12.2025 NO. HEI. C/075/2025 AND (4) DATED 19.12.2025 NO. HEI.C/076/2025 ISSUED BY THE R1 VIDE ANNX-D, D1, D2 AND D3 BY ISSUE OF WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AS A CASE MAY BE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM ORAL ORDER 1. Despite repeated queries by this Court to the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners as to how the present writ petition is maintainable under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the grievance projected relates purely to an alleged breach of terms and conditions of a Lease Agreement executed between the petitioners and the first respondent, who is admittedly a private entity running a cement factory, the learned Printed from counselvise.com - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13723 WP No. 446 of 2026 counsel for the petitioners was unable to satisfactorily address the issue of maintainability. This Court specifically called upon the petitioners’ counsel to demonstrate how a writ remedy could be invoked in respect of a dispute arising out of a private contractual arrangement, especially when the first respondent does not answer the description of “State” or “instrumentality of the State” within the meaning of Article 12 of the Constitution of India. However, instead of addressing the said jurisdictional objection, the learned counsel persisted in advancing submissions touching upon the alleged breach of the Lease Agreement and the contractual obligations between the parties. 2. This Court is of the considered view that disputes arising out of purely contractual obligations between private parties cannot ordinarily be adjudicated in exercise of writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, particularly when the respondent Printed from counselvise.com - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13723 WP No. 446 of 2026 against whom relief is sought is not a State instrumentality and no public law element is involved. 3. The controversy projected in the present petition essentially pertains to alleged violation of the terms of the Lease Agreement entered into between the petitioners and the first respondent, which is a private cement factory. Such disputes are essentially matters falling within the realm of private law and are required to be agitated before the appropriate civil forum in accordance with law. In the absence of any demonstrable public law element or statutory duty attributable to the first respondent, the invocation of writ jurisdiction is clearly misconceived. 4. For the aforesaid reasons, this Court is of the view that the writ petition is not maintainable. Consequently, the petition is liable to be dismissed. Printed from counselvise.com - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:13723 WP No. 446 of 2026 However, it is made clear that dismissal of this writ petition shall not preclude the petitioners from seeking redressal of their grievances before the appropriate forum, in a manner known to law. Accordingly, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (SACHIN SHANKAR MAGADUM) JUDGE NMS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 2 Printed from counselvise.com "