High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Environmentalist's Petition Seeking State Award and Livelihood Support — No Fundamental Right to Discretionary Honors. Writ of Mandamus Not Maintainable for Rajyotsava Award Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India.

High Court: Karnataka High Court Bench: BENGALURU
  • 38
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The petitioner, Sri D.A. Chowdappa, an environmentalist from Chikkballapur District, filed a writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India before the High Court of Karnataka. He claimed to have worked tirelessly for environmental protection, particularly against smugglers of minor minerals, saving the State over Rs. 50 lakhs. He alleged that despite recommendations from governmental authorities and public requests over six years, the State had not conferred upon him the Rajyotsava Award or provided livelihood support. He sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 (Principal Secretary, Department of Kannada and Culture, and Director and Member Secretary, Rajyotsava Award Committee) to consider the recommendations and pass appropriate orders to commemorate him with a suitable state award and support for livelihood. The court, after hearing the petitioner's counsel and the Government Advocate, observed that there is no fundamental right to receive a state award or livelihood support from the government. The court held that the matter is purely discretionary and no writ of mandamus can be issued. Consequently, the petition was dismissed.

Headnote

A) Constitutional Law - Writ Jurisdiction - Mandamus for State Award - Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India - The petitioner sought a writ of mandamus to direct respondents to consider recommendations for conferring Rajyotsava Award and provide livelihood support. The court held that there is no fundamental right to receive a state award or livelihood support from the government, and such matters are purely discretionary. The petition was dismissed as not maintainable. (Para 4)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued directing the State Government to confer a state award (Rajyotsava Award) and provide livelihood support to an environmentalist.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

The writ petition is dismissed.

Law Points

  • No fundamental right to receive state award
  • Writ of mandamus not maintainable for discretionary honors
  • Articles 226 and 227 of Constitution of India
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2013 LawText (KAR) (10) 12

Writ Petition No. 46126/2013 (GM-RES)

2013-10-22

Mohan M. Shantanagoudar

M. Shivaprakash (for petitioner), Sri Vijaykumar A. Patil (Government Advocate for respondents)

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

Nature of Litigation

Writ petition seeking mandamus to direct state authorities to confer a state award and provide livelihood support.

Remedy Sought

Petitioner sought a writ of mandamus directing respondents 4 and 5 to consider recommendations and pass orders to commemorate him with a suitable state award and support for livelihood.

Filing Reason

Petitioner claimed that despite recommendations and requests over six years, the State had not conferred the Rajyotsava Award or provided livelihood support.

Issues

Whether a writ of mandamus can be issued to direct the State to confer a state award and provide livelihood support.

Submissions/Arguments

Petitioner argued that he had worked hard for environmental protection and saved the State money, and that authorities had recommended him for awards. Respondents argued through Government Advocate that the matter is discretionary and no writ lies.

Ratio Decidendi

There is no fundamental right to receive a state award or livelihood support from the government; such matters are purely discretionary and no writ of mandamus can be issued.

Judgment Excerpts

There is no fundamental right to receive a state award or livelihood support from the Government. The matter is purely discretionary. Hence, no writ of mandamus can be issued.

Procedural History

The writ petition was filed on an unspecified date and came up for preliminary hearing on 22nd October 2013, when the court dismissed it.

Acts & Sections

  • Constitution of India: Articles 226, 227
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Dismisses Environmentalist's Petition Seeking State Award and Livelihood Support — No Fundamental Right to Discretionary Honors. Writ of Mandamus Not Maintainable for Rajyotsava Award Under Articles 226 and 227 of Constituti...
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Acquits Appellants in Murder Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Benefit of Doubt. Conviction under Sections 302, 120B, 201 IPC Set Aside as Circumstantial Evidence Failed to Establish Guilt Beyond Reasonable Doubt.