High Court of Karnataka Allows Writ Petition of International Para-Swimming Champion Seeking Cash Award Under Government Order. State Directed to Pay Rs.6,00,000/- as Cash Award for Sporting Achievements Under Government Orders Dated 30-11-2013 and 09-10-2017.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU In Favour of Prosecution
  • 1
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri Vishwas K.S., a decorated international para-swimming champion, filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru, seeking a direction in the nature of mandamus ordering the payment of a cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- as per Government Order No. YuSeEe 278 YuSeKree 2013 dated 30.11.2013 and Government Order No. YuSeEe 280 YuSeKree 2017 dated 09.10.2017. The petitioner had made repeated representations to the State Government for disbursement of the award, but the State failed to act, leading to the filing of the petition. The Court heard Smt. O. Ashwini, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Spoorthy Hegde, learned High Court Government Pleader for the respondents. The Court noted the petitioner's sterling accomplishments and the State's apathy and indifference in disbursing the cash award to which he was lawfully entitled. The Court held that the petitioner was entitled to the cash award and that the State's failure to pay despite repeated representations was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. The Court directed the respondents to disburse the cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner within a specified period.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ of Mandamus - Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Entitlement to Cash Award - The petitioner, a decorated international para-swimming champion, sought a writ of mandamus directing the State to pay a cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- under Government Orders dated 30-11-2013 and 09-10-2017. The Court held that the petitioner was lawfully entitled to the award and the State's inaction was arbitrary and violative of Article 14. (Paras 1-3)

B) Sports Law - Government Order - Cash Award for Sportspersons - Government Order No. YuSeEe 278 YuSeKree 2013 dated 30.11.2013 and Government Order No. YuSeEe 280 YuSeKree 2017 dated 09.10.2017 - The Court directed the respondents to disburse the cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner within a specified period, recognizing his sterling accomplishments and the State's obligation to honour its own policy. (Paras 2-3)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the petitioner, an international para-swimming champion, is entitled to the cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- under the Government Orders dated 30-11-2013 and 09-10-2017, and whether the State's failure to disburse the same despite repeated representations is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The Court allowed the writ petition and directed the respondents to disburse the cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- to the petitioner within a specified period.

Law Points

  • Article 226 of the Constitution of India
  • Government Order dated 30-11-2013
  • Government Order dated 09-10-2017
  • Right to cash award
  • Arbitrariness
  • Article 14
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2025 LawText (KAR) (07) 8

Writ Petition No.20895 of 2023 (GM – RES)

2025-07-21

M. Nagaprasanna

Smt. Ashwini O. (for petitioner), Sri Spoorthy Hegde N. (HCGP for respondents)

Sri Vishwas K.S.

The State of Karnataka (represented by Chief Secretary, Principal Secretary Youth Empowerment and Sports Secretariat, Deputy Secretary Youth Empowerment and Sports Secretariat, and The Directorate of Youth Empowerment and Sports represented by the Commissioner)

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking a writ of mandamus for payment of cash award.

Remedy Sought

Direction to the respondents to pay cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- as per Government Orders dated 30-11-2013 and 09-10-2017.

Filing Reason

Non-disbursement of cash award despite repeated representations by the petitioner, a decorated international para-swimming champion.

Issues

Whether the petitioner is entitled to the cash award of Rs.6,00,000/- under the Government Orders dated 30-11-2013 and 09-10-2017. Whether the State's failure to disburse the award despite repeated representations is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner's counsel argued that the petitioner, a decorated international para-swimming champion, is lawfully entitled to the cash award under the Government Orders and that the State's inaction is arbitrary. Respondents' counsel (HCGP) opposed the petition, but the judgment does not specify the arguments raised.

Ratio Decidendi

The petitioner, being a decorated international para-swimming champion, is lawfully entitled to the cash award under the Government Orders dated 30-11-2013 and 09-10-2017. The State's failure to disburse the award despite repeated representations is arbitrary and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India.

Judgment Excerpts

The petitioner, a decorated international para-swimming champion, approaches this Court invoking its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, lamenting the apathy and indifference of the State Government in disbursing cash award, to which he is lawfully entitled under the Government Order dated 30-11-2013. Despite his sterling accomplishments and relentless representation, the recognition owed to him by the State has remained, shockingly, elusive.

Procedural History

The petitioner filed a writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka at Bengaluru on an unspecified date. The petition was reserved for orders on 14.07.2025 and pronounced on 21.07.2025.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Article 226, Article 14
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Dismisses Insurance Company's Appeal in Motor Accident Claim Under Section 163A Motor Vehicles Act — No-Fault Liability Regime Precludes Defence of Deceased's Own Negligence. Claimants awarded Rs.8,15,000 with 8% interest for deat...
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Allows Landlord's Petition in Change of User Case — Limitation Period for Suit for Possession Governed by Article 67 of Limitation Act, 1963, Not Article 66, Where Tenancy Is Determined by Notice. The court remanded the matter to ...