Yuvaraj S/O Ramu Shinde v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC4 Dec 2025WP/101492/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court (Dharwad), WP No. 101492 of 2025 (S-PRO), decided 04-12-2025 by M. Nagaprasanna, J.; NC: 2025:KHC-D:17263. Mandamus sought for consideration of promotion representations (Grade-II Secretary) of a Bill Collector, Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi; five-year discontinuation of services by Taluka Panchayat after Lokayukta complaint (complainant Kiran Kamble); respondents: State of Karnataka (RDPR) and Belagavi Zilla Panchayat; disposed with 12-week direction to consider representation and pass orders in accordance with law.

What did the court decide?

Direction to the respondent to consider the petitioner's representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within 12 weeks from receipt of the copy of the order. ¶¶33

Yuvaraj S/O Ramu Shinde Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17263 WP No. 101492 of 2025

¶2

HC-KAR

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA,AT DHARWAD DATED THIS THE 4^TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO. 101492 OF 2025 (S-PRO)

¶5

BETWEEN:

¶6

YUVARAJ S/O. RAMU SHINDE, AGE. 52 YEARS, OCC. NIL, R/O. POST. BAAD, TQ. HUKKERI, DIST. BELAGAVI – 591 225.

¶7

…PETITIONER

¶8

(BY SRI. JAGADISH PATIL, ADVOCATE)

¶9

AND:

¶10

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYAT RAJ, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU.

¶11

THE BELAGAVI ZILLA PANCHAYAT, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, BELAGAVI – 590 002.

¶12

…RESPONDENTS

¶13

RAKESH S

¶14

(BY SMT. GIRIJA S. HIREMATH, HCGP FOR R1; SRI. SHIVARAJ HIREMATH, ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶15

HARIHAR

¶16

Digitally signed by RAKESH S HARIHAR Date: 2025.12.11 16:39:14 +0530

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION DATED 01/07/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-E AND REPRESENTATION DATED 22/08/2022 VIDE ANNEXURE-F AND CONSIDER THE PROMOTION OF THE PETITIONER TO THE POST OF GRADE – II SECRETARY IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY AND ETC.,

¶18

THIS WRIT PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:17263 WP No. 101492 of 2025

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

ORAL ORDER

¶22

(PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA)

¶23

The petitioner is before this Court seeking the

¶24

following prayer:

¶25

Issue a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to consider the representation dated 01/07/2022 vide annexure-e and representation dated 22/08/2022 vide Annexure-F and consider the promotion of the petitioner to the post of Grade – II Secretary in the interest of justice and equity.

¶26

Issue such other writ or pass such other direction and pass such other order as this Hon’ble Court deems fit and proper in the facts and circumstances of the cases.

¶27

The petitioner is working in the cadre of Bill Collector

¶28

or Revenue Officers in Town Municipal Council, Kushtagi. It transpires that a complaint comes about by one Kiran Kamble to the Karnataka Lokayukta regarding alleged misuse of authority by the President and the Panchayat Development Officer of the said Panchayat concerning the deposit of tax collected. Pursuant to the said complaint, the Taluka Panchayat has discontinued the services of the petitioner for a period of five years against which the petitioner has submitted a representation venting out his grievances.

¶29

¶30

NC: 2025:KHC-D:17263 WP No. 101492 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

The learned counsel Sri. Shivaraj Hiremath appearing for the respondent submits that if reasonable time is granted, the representation of the petitioner would merit consideration in strict consonance with law and appropriate orders would be passed thereon.

¶33

In the light of the said submission, I deem it appropriate to dispose subject petition with a direction to the respondent to consider the representation and pass necessary orders in accordance with law within an outer limit of 12 weeks from the date of the receipt of the copy of the order.

¶34

Ordered accordingly.

¶35

Sd/(M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE

¶36

RSH/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23

Yuvaraj S/O Ramu Shinde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yuvaraj S/O Ramu Shinde v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dr.Manik S/O. Manohar Shinde Vs Siddanna S/O. Ningappa Ramapura

Lalappa L Pammar Vs the State of Karnataka

Nagaraj S/O Ramchandra Suryavanshi Vs the State of Karnataka

Yasin Khan S/O Ahmed Khan Mudugal Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt.Inayathunnisa Vs the State of Karnataka

Shri Raghavendra R S/O Ramachar Vs the State of Karnataka