Sri. P. Mahesh Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI. P. MAHESH S/O SRI PUTTANARASAIAH, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, PRESENTLY WORKING AS JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, URBAN BANK CELL, OFFICE OF THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD BENGALURU- 560052

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

Digitally signed by JYOTHI MANJUNATH Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶13

(BY SRI. S.RAJASHEKAR., ADVOCATE)

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, M.S.BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU- 560001 REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY

¶16

THE REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES DEPARTMENT OF CO-OPERATION, NO.1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, BENGALURU - 560052

¶17

MR. N VENKATESH FATHERS NAME NOT KNOWN TO THE PETITIONER AGED MAJOR,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

WORKING AS JOINT REGISTRAR OF CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETIES, BENGALURU DIVISION, NO.146, SAHAKARA SOUDHA, 8TH CROSS, MALLESWARAM, BENGALURU- 560003

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. G.RAMESH NAIK, AGA FOR R1 AND R2; SRI. SIDDANOORU VISHWANATHA., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶23

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECTING THE R2 TO COMPLY/ ADHERE TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE R1 IN THEIR LETTER DATED 31.03.2026 BEARING REFERENCE NO. CO 334 ECA 2025 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2026 VIDE ANNC-K.

¶24

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS

¶25

DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

In this petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

¶29

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to comply/adhere to the direction issued by the 1st respondent in their letter dated 31.03.2026 bearing reference No.CO.334 ECA 2025 vide Annexure-A and consequently direct the Respondent 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 23.03.2026 vide Annexure-K

¶30

b) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

¶31

3 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶32

HC-KAR

¶33

c) Cost of this Writ Petition".

¶34

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

¶35

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was working as Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (ICDP) office, Bangalore when the respondent issued an order dated 05.12.2025 purporting to transfer the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Urban Bank Cell in the place of the respondent No.3-N. Venkatesh who was sought to be transferred to the Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore to the place of the one Dr. Umesha.G who in turn was sought to be transferred to the place of the petitioner. The aforesaid order of transfer dated 05.12.2025 whereby Dr. Umesha.G was sought to be transferred to the post of the petitioner assailed by him before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in application No.5000/2025 which was dismissed by the KSAT vide order dated 29.01.2026. The aforesaid Sri Dr. Umesha.G challenged the said order of the KSAT by approaching this Court in WP.No.2972/2026 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide Final Order dated 17.03.2026 whereby the Notification/Order dated 05.12.2025 transferring the said Dr. Umesha.G from the post of Joint Registrar Co-operative Society, Bangalore Division,

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

Malleswaram, Bangalore to the place/post of the petitioner as Joint Registrar Co-operative Society (ICDP), Bangalore was set aside and the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G was directed to be relieved from the said post and report to his original post as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore.

¶39

Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued communication dated 31.03.2026 directing the petitioner to report to the duty to the place where he was transferred where the third respondent was working at the time of issuance of the aforesaid notification at Annexure dated 05.12.2025. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP.No.2972/2026 dated 17.03.2026 at Annexure-F and the communication at Annexure-A, respondents No.1 and 2 are not taking any steps to implement the said orders and as such the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶40

Per contra, learned AGA submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondents No. 1 and 2 would take steps to implement and give effect to the aforesaid communication dated 31.03.2026 at Anneuxre-A in accordance with law.

¶41

Learned counsel for the respondent No.3 who has filed statement of objections would submit that the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP.No.2972/2026 dated 17.03.2026 has

¶42

5 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

been challenged by the respondent No.3 and pending before the Apex Court in SLP.No.13096/2026 and as such there is no merit in the present petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶46

Before averting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract the notification dated 05.12.2025 which reads as under :

¶47

ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕಸ�ಾ�ರ

¶48

¸ÀASÉå: ¹M 334 E¹J 2025

ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕ ಸ�ಾ�ರ

ಸ��ಾಲಯ

ಬಹುಮಹ�ಗಳಕಟ�ಡ

�ಾ.�.ಆ� ಅಂ�ೇಡ�� ೕ! �ೆಂಗಳ"ರು, #�ಾಂಕ:05.12.2025

¶53

ಅ!ಸೂಚ�ೆ

¶54

ಸಹ�ಾರ ಇ'ಾ(ೆಯ ಗೂ)* ಎ ವೃಂದದ ಈ �ೆಳಕಂಡ ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಉಂಟ 2ಬಂಧಕರುಗಳನು5 ಆಡ67ಾತ9ಕ:ತದೃ;�<ಂದತ=ಣ#ಂದ?ಾ@Aೆ ಬರುವಂ7ೆ Bಾಗೂಮುಂ#ನ ಆCೇಶದವEೆAೆಅವರುಗಳBೆಸ@ನಮುಂCೆಸೂ�FರುವಹುCೆG/ಸHಳಗ6AೆವAಾ�<F ಆCೇIFದ.

¶55

ಕ).	ಅ!�ಾ@ಯ Bೆಸರು, ಪದ�ಾಮ	ಪ)ಸುKತ	ಮತುKವAಾ�<ಸ'ಾದಹುCೆG
ಸಂ	�ಾಯ�2ವ�:ಸುLKರುವಸHಳI)ೕ/I)ೕಮL		ಮತುK ಸHಳ
01	I)ೕ M.ಮBೇಶ,ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ	ಜಂO	ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಜಂO
	2ಬಂಧಕರು(ಐF�M),ಸಹ�ಾರಸಂಘಗಳೆ	ಕQೇ@,	2ಬಂಧಕರು (ಪಟ�ಣ
	�ೆಂಗಳ"ರು.		�ಾRಂಕುಗಳ Sಾಗ).
			I)ೕಎT.�ೆಂಕUೇV ಇವರ ?ಾಗ�ೆ�)2ಬಂಧಕರಸಹ�ಾರ

¶56

6 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶57

HC-KAR

¶58

		ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕQೇ@,�ೆಂಗ	2ಬಂಧಕರ ೆಳ"ರು.
02	�ಾ.ಉWೕV X. ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಜಂO 2ಬಂಧಕರು,�ೆಂಗಳ"ರು Sಾಗ,ಮ'ೆYೕಶZರಂ, �ೆಂಗಳ"ರು.	ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂ 2ಬಂಧಕರು ಸಹ�ಾರ 2ಬಂಧಕರ �ೆಂಗಳ"ರು. M.ಮBೇV ಇೆ	ಘಗಳ ಜಂO (ಐF�M), ಸಂಘಗಳ ಕQೇ@, (I)ೕ ವರ?ಾಗ�ೆ�)
03	ಎT.�ೆಂಕUೇಶ, ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಜಂO 2ಬಂಧಕರು(ಪಟ�ಣ�ಾRಂಕುಗಳ Sಾಗ).ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ2ಬಂಧಕರಕQೇ@ �ೆಂಗಳ"ರು.	ಸಹ�ಾರ ಸಂ 2ಬಂಧಕರು, Sಾಗ, �ೆಂಗಳ"ರು. X.?ಾಗ�ೆ�).	ಘಗಳ ಜಂO �ೆಂಗಳ"ರು ಮ'ೆYೕಶZರಂ, �ಾ.ಉWೕV

¶59

ಕ�ಾ�ಟಕEಾಜR[ಾಲರಆCೇ\ಾನು]ಾರ ಮತುK ಅವರBೆಸ@ನ^Y

¶60

ಮು2ಆಂಜನಪ_) ಸ�ಾ�ರದಅ!ೕನ�ಾಯ�ದI� -2 ಸಹ�ಾರಇ'ಾ(ೆ .

¶61

As can be seen from the aforesaid notification, the petitioner who was working as a Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies, (ICDP) has been transferred to the post/place of JRCS, Urban Bank Division, where the third respondent was originally posted and working. Under the very same notification, the third respondent has been transferred to the post of JRCS, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore, where the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G was working so also under the very same

¶62

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

notification, the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G has been transferred to the post/place of the petitioner as JRCS, ICDP, Bengaluru.

¶65

As stated supra, the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G assailed/challenged the aforesaid notification before the KSAT which rejected the said application. Aggrieved by which the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G approached this Court in WP.No.2972/2026 which was allowed by this Court vide Final Order dated 17.03.2026 as hereunder :

¶66

"Heard Sri K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2, Sri Suresh S.Lokre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Siddanooru Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondent No.3 and Smt. Kshama Naragund, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for respondent No.4.

¶67

2. The applicant in Application No.5000/2025 has filed the present writ petition challenging the order dated 29.01.2026 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore (for short, “the Tribunal”).

¶68

3. The brief facts are that all the three officers belong to the cadre of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies. The petitioner was posted as Administrator of the Tumkur District Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Union by order dated 13.11.2023. Respondent No.3, who

¶69

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

was working as Personal Secretary to the Hon’ble Minister for Co-operation, came to be transferred and posted as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ICDP) in the Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, against a vacant post, by Notification dated 29.02.2024.

¶72

3.1 After the elections were completed in Tumkur District Milk Producers Co-operative Societies Union, the petitioner handed over charge of the post of Administrator and was relieved from Tumkur on 22.01.2025. By order dated 27.02.2025, the petitioner was posted as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, Bangalore, in place of Sri Ashwath Narayan, and the petitioner took charge on 28.02.2025.

¶73

3.2 Respondent No.3 was transferred from the post of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ICDP), Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, to the post of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Town Bank Cell, by order dated 25.06.2025. Under the same order, respondent No.4 was posted as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ICDP), Bangalore, in place of respondent No.3. Respondent Nos.3 and 4 continued to work as Joint Registrars of Co-operative Societies, Town Bank Cell and ICDP respectively for about five months.

¶74

3.3 By order dated 05.12.2025, respondent No.3 was posted to the place of the petitioner as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division; the petitioner was posted in the place of respondent No.4 as Joint

¶75

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ICDP), Bangalore; and respondent No.4 was posted in the place of respondent No.3 as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Town Bank Cell.

¶78

3.4 The said order was impugned before the Tribunal contending that the transfer of the petitioner was premature and that the same was effected to accommodate respondent Nos.3 and 4. The Tribunal, referring to the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and also holding that the transfer was within Bangalore city, rejected the application.

¶79

4. Sri K. Satish, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the petitioner was posted as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore, by order dated 27.02.2025, and that his transfer under order dated 05.12.2025, within a period of ten months, is premature and contrary to the transfer policy. Learned counsel further submits that the transfer has been effected at the instance of respondent Nos.3 and 4 in order to accommodate them. It is contended that neither bona fides nor any administrative exigency exists for effecting the transfer of the petitioner.

¶80

5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, submits that the transfer has been effected with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister on account of

¶81

10 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶82

HC-KAR

¶83

administrative exigencies and is in accordance with law. Learned Additional Government Advocate further submits that the transfer is within Bangalore city and that no prejudice would be caused to the petitioner.

¶84

6. Sri Suresh S. Lokre, learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri Siddanooru Vishwanath, learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that the transfer order dated 05.12.2025 has been issued with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister and is in conformity with the transfer guidelines. It is further submitted that respondent No.3 has taken charge as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, on 06.12.2025 and that the same need not be disturbed at this stage. Learned Senior Counsel also submits that the transfer of government officials lies within the domain of the department.

¶85

7. Smt. Kshama Naragund, learned counsel appearing for Smt. Sona Vakkund, learned counsel for respondent No.4, submits that the petitioner has been transferred within Bangalore city and that the same would not amount to a transfer. Learned counsel further submits that the transfer order has been issued with the prior approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister for administrative purposes and in public interest, and that there is no illegality in the order of transfer.

¶86

8. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties and perused the writ papers.

¶87

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶88

HC-KAR

¶89

9. The sequence of events referred to hereinabove is not in dispute. The petitioner was transferred to the post of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, by Notification dated 27.02.2025 (Annexure–A5) and assumed charge of the said post. Respondent No.3 was transferred as Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (ICDP) by Notification dated 20.09.2024.

¶90

9.1 The transfer of the petitioner on 05.12.2025 as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ICDP), Bangalore, is no doubt premature. The premature transfer is defended by the respondents by referring to the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. It is no doubt true that a premature transfer can be effected with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. However, when the exercise of such approval is not in public interest or on account of administrative exigency, this Court would be justified in interfering with the same.

¶91

9.2 The order sheet noting seeking approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is placed on record as Annexure–R1. The approval proceedings were initiated with the letter of the Hon’ble Chief Minister dated 15.10.2025 seeking transfer of respondent No.4, who was working as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies (ICDP), to the post of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Town Bank Cell, Bangalore. The recommendation was to transfer

¶92

12 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶93

HC-KAR

¶94

respondent No.4 in the place of respondent No.3. The entire file noting indicates the proposal to transfer respondent No.4 in the place of respondent No.3.

¶95

9.3 However, while approving the transfer of respondent No.4 in the place of respondent No.3, without assigning any reasons, respondent No.3 was approved to be posted in the place of the petitioner and the petitioner was directed to be posted in the place of respondent No.4. The proposal for transfer of the petitioner was never initiated except as reflected in the order of approval. The exercise of power, on the face of it, appears arbitrary and unjustifiable.

¶96

9.4 We note that, respondent No.3 was posted as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Town Bank Cell, Bangalore, and respondent No.4 as Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies (ICDP), Bangalore, on 25.06.2025. The transfer of respondent Nos.3 and 4 dated 05.12.2025 is premature along with that of the petitioner. The transfer of all the three officers in the cadre of Joint Registrar of Cooperative Societies, that too within a span of less than five months from the transfer of respondent Nos.3 and 4, requires justifiable transparency and non-arbitrariness.

¶97

9.5 We find that no reasons have been assigned for such premature transfers. The entire sequence of events would indicate that the exercise undertaken under the Notification dated 05.12.2025 is to accommodate respondent Nos.3 and 4. No doubt, a government servant

¶98

13 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶99

HC-KAR

¶100

does not retain a right to continue service in the same place. Transfer is not a condition but an incidence of service. However, once a government servant is extended a minimum tenure, he is entitled to continue for the said minimum tenure. The exception to this rule is permitting the premature transfer with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, and it cannot be exercised arbitrarily.

¶101

9.6 In the absence of any reasons stated for the premature transfer in the approval proceedings, it is to be inferred that the approval has been granted without assigning reasons. Unless reasons are assigned to justify administrative exigency, a mere reference to public interest or administrative exigencies would not suffice. Even before this Court, no reasons have been stated for effecting the premature transfer.

¶102

9.7 The Tribunal has committed an error in not interfering with the order of transfer merely on the ground that the transfer was effected with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister, without examining whether reasons are recorded for such approval.

¶103

10. Learned counsel for respondent No.3 placed reliance on the judgment of this Court in W.P. No.3612/2025 disposed of on 22.08.2025 in S. Venkateshappa vs. State of Karnataka and others to contend that a premature transfer with the approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister is permissible. The said decision is not applicable to the present case, as in that case the

¶104

14 -

¶105

NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶106

HC-KAR

¶107

premature transfer was made on the recommendation of the jurisdictional MLA based on complaints received from the public and the approval was granted with reasons.

¶108

10.1 The contention of the respondents that the petitioner, having reported at the transferred place in compliance with the order of transfer, cannot now question the transfer order cannot be accepted. The order of transfer was challenged before the Tribunal and, when no interim order was granted, the petitioner preferred W.P. No.37535/2025 (S-KSAT). This Court, by order dated 12.12.2025, while requesting the Tribunal to decide the application on merits before 14.01.2026 and definitely by 30.01.2026, directed the petitioner to report to the place of posting in terms of the order dated 05.12.2025, without prejudice to his grievance. In view of the observations made by this Court, the act of the petitioner reporting at the transferred place cannot operate against him in the present petition.

¶109

11. For the aforesaid reasons, we pass the

¶110

following;

¶111

Order

¶112

(i) Writ Petition is allowed .

¶113

(ii) The order in Application No.5000/2025, dated 29.01.2026 passed by the passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bangalore, is set aside.

¶114

(iii) The Application No.5000/2025 is allowed.

¶115

15 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶116

HC-KAR

¶117

(iv) The Notification dated 05.12.2025 bearing No. CO 334 ECA 2025 (Annexure-A8) is hereby quashed insofar as transferring the petitioner from Joint Registrar, Co-operative Society, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore, to Joint Registrar, Co-operative Societies (ICDP), Office of the Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Bangalore.

¶118

(v) The petitioner is to be relieved from the post of Joint Registrar, ICDP, Office of the Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore and be permitted to report to duty as Joint Registrar Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore, forthwith.

¶119

(vi) No order as to costs.

¶120

Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of."

¶121

As can be seen from the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP.No.2972/2026, the transfer of Dr. Umesha.G from the post/place as JRCS, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore to the post/place of the JRCS (ICDP) has been set aside by this Court and the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G has been directed to continue to work as JRCS, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore. The only consequence of the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP No.2972/2026 would be that the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G would have to continued to be retained at the post/place of JRCS, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore and the said order passed by this Court does not vary, alter or modify the order of the aforesaid Notification dated 05.12.2025

¶122

16 - NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶123

HC-KAR

¶124

transferring the petitioner from the post of JRCS (ICDP) to the post of JRCS, Urban Bank, which was not the subject matter of aforesaid writ petition.

¶125

Under these circumstances, merely because the third respondent is said to have filed the aforesaid petition in SLP.No.13096/2026, even assuming that the said petition is allowed by the Hon'ble Apex Court setting aside the order passed by this Court, the only consequence of the same would be to restore Annexure-B to the limited/restricted extent of transferring the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G to the post of the JRCS (ICDP) and if the transfer of the petitioner from the post of JRCS (ICDP) to the post of JRCS, Urban Bank is not set aside, mere pendency of the aforesaid petition before the Apex Court would not come in the way of respondents No.1 and 2 implementing and giving effect to the order at Annexure-A. Under these circumstances, the said contention urged on behalf of the respondent No.3 cannot be accepted.

¶126

As stated supra, even assuming that the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G is transferred from the post of JRCS, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram Bangalore to the post of JRCS (ICDP) where the petitioner was working, so long as the transfer of the petitioner from the post/place of JRCS (ICDP) to JRCS, Urban Bank is not varied, set aside, modified or altered in a manner

¶127

17 -

¶128

NC: 2026:KHC:20571 WP No. 10406 of 2026

¶129

HC-KAR

¶130

known to law, it cannot be said that the respondents No.1 and 2 cannot be directed to implement and give effect to the order passed by them in accordance with law.

¶131

In the result, the following:

¶132

ORDER

¶133

i. Writ petition is hereby allowed.

¶134

ii. Respondents No.1 and 2 are directed to give effect to and implement the Annexure-A dated 31.03.2026 within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order.

¶135

Sd/-

¶136

(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶137

RJ

¶138

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

Sri. P. Mahesh v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. P. Mahesh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Tejeswini G S Vs Reserve Bank of India

Mrs. Madhuri S Kotagi Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt Ramya H N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt Hema N Vs State of Karnataka

Smt J Manjula Vs State of Karnataka by

C S Mukunda Chandra Vs State of Karnataka