Karnataka High Court
WP/18912/2026 of SRI. RAJEGOWDA N R Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 24 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:31657-DB WP No. 18912 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 18912 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SRI. RAJEGOWDA N.R S/O.
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
WRIT PETITION NO. 18912 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
SRI. RAJEGOWDA N.R
S/O. RAMALINGAIAH,
AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS,
WAS WORKING AS SHERISTEDAR
(RECORD OF RIGHTS),
HOSKOTE TALUK OFFICE,
TALUK ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, HOSKOTE,
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT - 562 114
UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS DEPUTY
TAHSILDAR, HAGALAWADI HOBLI,
GUBBI TALUK, TUMKUR - 572 222
RESIDING AT NO. 1431, 2ND CROSS,
2ND BLOCK, BANASHANKARI 6TH STAGE,
BENGALURU-560 050.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
M. S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.
2.
THE REGIONAL COMMISSIONER,
NODAL OFFICER, EX OFFICIO-SECRETARY
(ECONOMIC OFFENCES),
DEPARTMENT OF REVENUE,
2ND FLOOR, BMTC BUILDING,
Digitally signed
by PANKAJA S
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR,
BANGALORE - 560 027.
3.
SRI BHASKAR K.P
FATHER NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER
MAJOR WAS WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR
HAGALAWADI HOBLI, GUBBI TALUK
TUMKUR-572 222
UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS
SHERISTEDAR (RECORD OF RIGHTS)
HOSKOTE TALUK OFFICE
TALUK ADMINISTRATION BUILDING, HOSKOTE
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT-562 114
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. K.R. RAJENDRA, AGA FOR R1 & R2, SRI. NARAYAN M NAIK, ADVOCATE FOR C/R3)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF
THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OR
ORDER SETTING ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED
02/06/2026 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.2700/2026 BY THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU BENCH (ANNEXURE-A) INSOFAR AS NON-GRANT
OF THE INTERIM ORDER AS PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER
AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INTERIM ORDER OF STAY AS
PRAYED FOR BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE HON'BLE
TRIBUNAL IN APPLICATION NO.2700/2026 (ANNEXURE-B).
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K
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 petitioner on his transfer from Hoskote, Bangalore Rural District to Gubbi Taluk, Tumkur District, is before this Court aggrieved by rejection of interim prayer by the Karnataka
HC-KAR
State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short 'the Tribunal') by order dated 02.06.2026 in Application No.2700/2026.
2. Heard learned counsel Sri M.K. Prithveesh for the petitioner, learned AGA Sri K.R. Rajendra for respondent Nos.1 and 2 and learned counsel Sri Narayan M. Naik for respondent No.3. Perused the entire writ petition papers.
3. Learned counsel for the petitioner would submit that the transfer of the petitioner is premature and the same is also without approval of the Chief Minister, as the said transfer is subsequent to the transfer period. Further, learned counsel has placed reliance on the decision of this Court in W.P.No.16515/2026 dated 05.06.2026 wherein petitioner therein had approached this Court on rejection of interim prayer of stay of premature transfer, by the Tribunal. Firstly, the petitioner cannot compare himself with the petitioner in W.P.No.16515/2026. The interim order would depend on the facts and circumstances of each case.
4. A perusal of order dated 02.06.2026, it is seen that the Tribunal taking note of factual matrix, directed the parties to maintain status-quo existing as on that date.
HC-KAR
5. Learned counsel appearing for caveator-respondent No.3 submits that he has already reported to duty, however, the same is denied by the learned counsel for the petitioner. We do not enter into examine as to whether respondent No.3 has reported to duty and whether the petitioner is relieved of his duty at this stage. It is for the Tribunal to consider as to whether the petitioner's transfer is premature and whether the transfer is without the approval of Chief Minister. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of.
All the contentions are left open. The Tribunal shall dispose of the matter expeditiously.
Pending I.As., if any, stand disposed of. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1