Karnataka High Court
WP/20530/2026 of SMT. GAYATHRI S Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 8 July 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:34215-DB WP No. 20519 of 2026 C/W WP No. 20530 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 20519 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 8TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 20519 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
C/W
WRIT PETITION NO. 20530 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
IN WP No.20519/2026
BETWEEN:
SRI. K.S. SATHESHWARA RAJU @ RAJU
S/O Y.SUNDAR RAJU
AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS,
PRESENTLY WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR,
TAYALUR HOBLI, MULABAGILU TALUK,
KOLAR DISTRICT.
RESIDING AT DOOR NO.87,
7TH CROSS, PALASANDRA LAYOUT,
KOLAR TOWN,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 101.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S BUILDING,
DR. B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
Digitally signed
by SOWMYA
DODDAMARAIAH
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2.
THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3.
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-8
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU- 560 001.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY,AGA)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 11/06/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2129/2026
PASSED BY THE HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHERE IN INTERIM ORDER IS
REFUSED AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT INTERIM ORDER STAY
IN APPLICATION NO.2129/2026 STAYING THE ORDER BEARING
NO.KAME 123 ADE 2025, BENGALURU DATED 15/11/2025
PASSED BY RESPONDENT NO.1 ALSO STAYING ISSUANCE OF
ARTICLES
OF
CHARGE
VIDE
BEARING
NO.UPLOK-
2/DE/208/2025/ARE-8
DATED
26/02/2026
ISSUED
BY
RESPONDENT NO.3 AS PER ANNEXURES-A21 AND A22 IN
APPLICATION NO.2129/2026 WHICH IS PART OF ANNEXURE-B
HC-KAR
SERIES PENDING DISPOSAL OF THE APPLICATION BEFORE THE
HONBLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AT
BENGALURU.
IN WP NO.20530/2026
BETWEEN:
SMT. GAYATHRI S
W/O YOGENDHRANATH
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
PRESENTLY WORKING AS
FIRST DIVISION ASSISTANT
OFFICE OF THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER,
KOLAR DISTRICT, KOLAR,
RESIDING AT MATHRU NILAYA,
8TH CROSS, VIVEKANANDA NAGAR,
GAFFAR LAYOUT, BANGARPETE,
KOLAR DISTRICT-563 114.
...PETITIONER
(BY SRI. KASHINATH J.D.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
REPRESENTED BY ITS
PRINCIPAL SECRETARY.
2.
THE REGISTRAR,
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
3.
THE ASSISTANT REGISTRAR ENQUIRIES-8
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
HC-KAR
M.S. BUILDING,
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI,
BENGALURU-560 001.
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI.V.SHIVAREDDY, AGA)
THIS W.P IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE WRIT IN
THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER
DATED 22.04.2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2347/2026
PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL AS PER ANNEXURE-A WHERE IN INTERIM ORDER IS
REFUSED AND ETC.
THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)
The petitioners are before this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India aggrieved by non grant of interim order by the Tribunal vide order dated
HC-KAR
11.06.2026 in Application No.2129/2026 and order dated 22.04.2026 in Application No.2347/2026 respectively.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri.Kashinath J D for the petitioners and learned AGA Sri.V Shivareddy for the respondents.
3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
4. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are before the Tribunal questioning the order of entrustment of enquiry to respondent No.2 as well as articles of charge issued by respondent No.3 - Enquiry Officer. Learned counsel for the petitioners would submit that the petitioners are working as Revenue Inspector and Section Officer respectively in their respective Taluk offices. It is his submission that the alleged charge against the petitioners is without any basis and he particularly pleads that the petitioners have not recommended for grant of land nor they had any power to grant the land. Learned counsel would submit that the grant of land relates prior to their posting to the present places at Mulabagilu Taluk office. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal failed to appreciate the prima facie case made out
HC-KAR
by the petitioners and failed to grant interim stay of the enquiry.
5. On the other hand, learned AGA would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners are to be examined by the Enquiry Officer and, at this premature stage, it would not be appropriate for this Court to consider the contentions raised by the petitioners. Thus, prayed for dismissal of the writ petition.
6. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have not made out prima facie case for grant of interim stay as sought and the Tribunal has rightly rejected the interim prayers. The petitioners have questioned the order of entrustment of enquiry to respondent No.2 and the articles of charge issued by respondent No.3 in pursuant to entrustment of enquiry. If the grounds raised by the petitioners are considered at this stage nothing would remain for consideration by the Tribunal at the time of disposal. Whether petitioners worked at the relevant point of time in the
HC-KAR
said office is a factual aspect which cannot be gone into by this Court at this stage.
7. Accordingly, the writ petitions stand dismissed. However, it is needless to state that all the contentions of the parties are left open.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
GSR List No.: 1 Sl No.: 19