Captain Srinivasa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

Captain Srinivasa Gowda Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Writ petition disposed of by quashing the impugned interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed in Application No.1124/2025; Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal requested to hear and dispose of the pending application on the next date of hearing; costs made easy (no costs awarded).

Issue for consideration

Whether the interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1124/2025 is liable to be set aside on the ground that it does not reflect the caveator-respondent's long-continued posting at Bangalore City.

Court's answer

The aspect of the caveator-respondent's continued service in Bangalore City not being reflected in the impugned interim order even inarticulately, the order is vulnerable for challenge and the Tribunal's order is liable to be set aside; it was accordingly quashed.

Ratio / Principle

The Hon'ble Tribunal is requested (at the instance of learned counsel for the caveator-respondent) to hear and dispose of the pending Application No.1124/2025 on the next date of hearing itself.

Key takeaways

Observation in the best interest of public administration: a public servant cannot cling on to the capital city of the State all through, regardless of its attraction — 'charaiveti charaiveti', literally meaning 'move on, move on', being the rule of life.obiter¶35
The observations made in this order are confined to the disposal of the petition and do not cast their shadow or light on the adjudication of the pending Application on its intrinsic merits.ratio¶41

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru (Division Bench: Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar JJ.; order per Krishna S Dixit J.), 08.04.2025 — W.P. No. 10796 of 2025 (S-KSAT): Captain Srinivasa Gowda, transferred as Special Land Acquisition Officer, Karnataka Housing Board, challenged the interim order dated 02.04.2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.1124/2025 filed by respondent No.4 (caveator, Smt. Jaya H). Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the caveator had served at Mandya between February 2014 and September 2019 and since 30.9.2019 had been working only in Bangalore City with different entities; the Court observed that a public servant cannot cling on to the capital city all through, 'charaiveti charaiveti' ('move on, move on') being the rule of life. Since this aspect was not reflected in the impugned order even inarticulately, the Court held the order vulnerable and quashed it, requesting the Tribunal to hear and dispose of the pending application on the next date of hearing itself. The observations were expressly confined to the disposal of the petition and were not to affect adjudication of the pending application on its merits; costs were made easy.

1 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14883-DB WP No. 10796 of 2025

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 8^TH DAY OF APRIL, 2025

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

AND

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 10796 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

CAPTAIN SRINIVASA GOWDA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, TRANSFERRED AS SPECIAL LAND ACQUISITION OFFICER, KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD, BENGALURU. RESIDING AT NO.27/11, NIRMAL JYOTHI COMPLEX, OFF CUBBON ROAD, BEHIND ZUARI CORPORATE BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

…PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SUBRAMANYA R.,ADVOCATE)

AND:

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL & ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

THE KARNATAKA HOUSING BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS COMMISSIONER, CAUVERY BHAVAN, BENGALURU-560 009.

KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD REPRESENTED BY ITS CHAIRMAN, NO.55, ABHAYA COMPLEX, RISALDAR STREET, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU-560 020.

2 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14883-DB WP No. 10796 of 2025

SMT. JAYA H D/O LATE P H RAJU, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, UNDER ORDERS OF TRANSFER, SECRETARY, KARNATAKA SLUM DEVELOPMENT BOARD, BENGALURU, RESIDING AT NO.25, 6^TH CROSS, PIPELINE ROAD, VIJAYANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 023.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH.,AGA FOR R1; V.C.O DATED 08.04.2025SRI. KARTHIK V., ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI. H L PRADEEP KUMAR., ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. P N RAJESHWAR., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. V R SARATHY., ADVOCATE FOR C/R4)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICELS 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) SET-ASIDE THE IMPUGNED INTERIM ORDER DATED 02/04/2025 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.1124/2025 (ANNEXURE-A) BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL AND B) PASS ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE ORDER, INCLUDING THE COST OF THIS WRIT PETITION.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND

HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

Petitioner, a Civil Servant is grieving before the Writ

Court against an interim order granted by the State

3 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14883-DB WP No. 10796 of 2025

Administrative Tribunal on 02.04.2025 in private

Respondent’s Application No.1124/2025.

Learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner draws

our attention to the fact that during the period between February 2014 and September 2019, the Caveatorrespondent had served in Mandya, and since 30.9.2019 she has been working only in Bangalore City, although with different entities. A public servant cannot cling on to capital city of the State all through, regardless of its attraction; this we say in the best interest of public administration, ‘ charaiveti charaiveti’ literally meaning ‘move on, move on’ being the rule of life.

The above aspect of the matter, learned counsel appearing for the Petitioner submits, is not reflected in the impugned order even inarticulately. This renders the said order vulnerable for challenge. In view of that, the order of the Tribunal is liable to be set aside.

4 -

NC: 2025:KHC:14883-DB WP No. 10796 of 2025

At this stage, learned counsel Prof.P.N.Rajeshwar appearing for Respondent No.4-Caveator submits that petition itself may be disposed off with the above arrangement, requesting the Hon’ble Tribunal to hear & dispose off the pending Application on the next date of hearing itself. We make that request to the Hon’ble Tribunal.

Writ Petition is disposed off quashing the impugned order with the above observations, costs having been made easy.

At the instance of learned counsel Prof.P.N.Rajeshwar appearing for the caveator-respondent, we make it clear that the observations herein above made being confined to disposal of this petition, do not cast their shadow or light on the adjudication of pending Application on its intrinsic merits.

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

Sd/(RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR) JUDGE

Cbc/Snb List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20