Karnataka High Court
/15943/2026 of THE STATE OF KARNATAKA Vs SRI SAGAYARAJA on 1 June 2026
NC: 2026:KHC:25479-DB WP No. 15943 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF JUNE, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE K.MANMADHA RAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 15943 OF 2026 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
1.
THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
DEPARTMENT OF HOME
REP. BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY
VIDHANA SOUDHA
BENGALURU- 560001.
2.
THE COMMISSIONER
DEPARTMENT OF SOCIAL WELFARE
51TH FLOOR, M S BUILDING
BENGALURU - 560001.
3.
THE DIRECTOR GENERAL
AND INSPECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE
NO.2, NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU - 560001.
4.
THE ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR
-GENERAL OF POLICE
NO.2, NRUPATUNGA ROAD
BENGALURU- 560001.
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI.I THARANATH POOJARY AAG, A/W
SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA)
Digitally signed by
NANJUNDACHARI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
AND:
1.
SRI SAGAYARAJA
S/O LATE ANTHONY SWAMY
AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS
WORKING AS
SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE INSPECTOR
9TH BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE
KUDLU, BENGALURU-560100
R/AT NO.10, CAUVERY BLOCK
9TH BATTALION POLICE QUARTERS
KUDLU, BENGALURU -560100.
2.
SRI PRASANNA KUMAR D P
S/O PUTTASWAMY GOWDA
AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS
WORKING AS
SPECIAL RESERVE POLICE INSPECTOR
5TH BATTALION,
KARNATAKA STATE RESERVE POLICE
MYSURU UNI, LALITHA MAHAL ROAD
MYSURU - 570011
R/AT NO.93, ‘5’ CROSS
SIDDIVINAYAK BADAVANE
TEACHERS LAYOUT, MYSURU–570019.
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. PRITHVEESH M.K., ADV.)
THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227
OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A
WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION, QUASHING THE EX-PARTE INTERIM
ORDER,
DATED
22.04.2026,
PRODUCED
HEREWITH
AS
ANNEXURE-A,
PASSED
BY
THE
KARNATAKA
STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION
NO.2372-73/2026, INSOFAR AS IT STAYS 2ND PETITIONERS
HC-KAR
COMMUNICATION TO THE 1ST PETITIONER, BY LETTER, DATED
20.03.2026 AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR FINAL HEARING, 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 State represented by the Department of Social Welfare is before this Court in this writ petition challenging the interim order dated 22.04.2026 in Application No.2372-2373/2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’) staying the impugned notification bearing No.SWD:REC:1(UR):2:2025 dated 20.03.2026 till the next date of hearing issued by the petitioners herein.
2. The matter is directed to be listed before the Tribunal on 11.06.2026.
HC-KAR
3. Heard learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Tharanath Poojary along with learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.V.Shiva Reddy for petitioners and learned counsel Sri.Prithveesh.M.K., for respondent Nos.1 and 2. Perused the material on record.
4. The respondents/applicants before the Tribunal questioned the impugned communication dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure-A4) and sought for a direction to the respondents to grant promotion i.e., respondents herein, as Assistant Commandants with all consequential benefits. On the interim prayer of the respondents, the Tribunal granted stay of the impugned communication dated 20.03.2026 (Annexure-A4). Questioning the said interim order of stay, the State is before this Court.
5. Learned Additional Advocate General Sri.Tharanath Poojary on behalf of the State among other contentions, contends that it is not permissible for the respondents to question the internal communication
HC-KAR
issued by the Commissioner, Social Welfare Department to the Additional Chief Secretary to Government, Home Department. Therefore, he contends that the Tribunal could not have granted the impugned interim order.
6. The petitioners-State has an opportunity to file an application for vacating interim order and bring to the notice of the Tribunal, the contentions urged before this Court. Having not filed application for vacating interim order, it may not be proper for the State to come before this Court. This Court normally would not entertain writ under Article 226 of the constitution of India, under one exhausts the available remedy.
7. It is open for the State to file proper application seeking vacating interim order dated 22.04.2026. If such application is filed, we are sure that the Tribunal would consider and pass appropriate order. Liberty is reserved for the State thereafter to question the order, passed by the Tribunal, if they are aggrieved by such order.
HC-KAR
8. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of.
Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/- (DR.K.MANMADHA RAO) JUDGE
NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 5