Mrs. Madhuri S Kotagi Vs the State of Karnataka

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE OFFICE ORDER DATED 18.12.2025 AT ANNEXURE-A, PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO. 3 AND ETC.,

¶28

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶29

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

¶30

ORAL ORDER

¶31

In this petition, petitioner seeks the following reliefs as per

¶32

amended petition filed on 02.04.2026;

¶33

i. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, quashing the office order dated 18.12.2025 at ANNEXURE-A, passed by the Respondent No. 3.

¶34

3 -

¶35

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶36

HC-KAR

¶37

ii. Issue a writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ that this Hon'ble Court deems fit directing Respondents 2 and 3 to restore the Petitioner to full and effective charge of the post of Assistant Revenue Officer, Kempegowda Nagara, Greater Bengaluru Authority.

¶38

iii. Pass any other writ, order or direction that this court deems fit in the interest of equity and justice.

¶39

iv. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other appropriate writ that this Hon'ble Court deems fit, quashing the office order dated 05.02.2026 at ANNEXURE-Q, passed by the Respondent No.3.

¶40

Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA for respondent No.1 and learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 to 5 and perused the materials on record.

¶41

A perusal of the material on record will indicate that on 04.07.2024, the State Government issued a Transfer Guideline describing minimum tenure and requirement of reasons for premature transfer, which stipulated that Public/Government servants could not be prematurely transferred for a period of 2 years from the date of taking charge of a particular post/place.

¶42

4 -

¶43

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶44

HC-KAR

¶45

On 28.01.2025, the respondent issued a office Order deputing the petitioner as Assistant Revenue Officer (ARO) Kempegowdanagar on OOD basis, pursuant to which, the petitioner reported for duty on 30.01.2025 and transfer of charge certificate was executed in her favour.

¶46

Subsequently, on 03.06.2025, the Chief Commissioner BBMP issued an office Order regularising the petitioner's posting as ARO, Kempegowdanagar sub-division against the existing vacant post.

¶47

It is contented by the petitioner that due to ill-health of her mother, the petitioner could not attend work during the period from 05.12.2025 to 12.12.2025, 13.12.2025 to 22.12.2025 and 23.12.2025 to 03.01.2026 and though the petitioner had submitted a leave application on account of her mother's ill health, the respondent issued an office Order at Annexure - K dated 10.12.2025 appointing respondent No.5 as Additional Charge ARO in the place of the petitioner during her period of leave.

¶48

It is the grievance of the petitioner that subsequently vide impugned Order at Annexure – A dated 18.12.2025, respondent No.3 transferred the petitioner without providing/giving her any

¶49

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶50

HC-KAR

¶51

place/posting which is contrary to the judgment of the Division Bench of this Court in the case of Sri.K.Arun Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and others .

¶52

It is also submitted that subsequently, the respondents proceeded to pass an impugned Order at Annexure - Q dated 05.02.2026 during the pendency of the present petition whereby the petitioner is sought to be placed on Election Department of the Corporation on OOD basis without providing her any post and as such, the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

¶53

Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner would reiterate the various contentions urged in the petition and invite my attention to the material on record in order to point out that the impugned transfer order without providing a posting to the petitioner is contrary to the transfer guidelines since the impugned transfer is premature having been issued within a period of two years and without there being any valid or sufficient ground facts and circumstances made-out by the respondents and without complying with the reasons mentioned therein, the respondents also committed an error in issuing the impugned transfer order without

¶54

6 -

¶55

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

providing a place of posting in favour of the petitioner as can be seen from Annexure - A dated 18.12.2025, which is contrary to the principles laid down in Sri.Arun Kumar's case supra . It is also pointed out that even subsequently, the petitioners is sought to be placed on OOD duty in the Election Department without providing any particular post even in the said department which is also contrary to the aforesaid judgment and as such, the impugned Order at Annexures - A and Q deserve to be quashed.

¶58

Per contra , learned counsel for the respondents – BBMP would support the impugned Order and submit that there is no merit in the petition and the same is liable to be dismissed.

¶59

It is further submitted by learned counsel for respondent that the respondents are intending to take appropriate action for misconduct against the petitioner and liberty may be reserved in favour of the respondents in this regard.

¶60

Before adverting to the rival contentions, it would be necessary to extract Annexure - A dated 18.12.2025 as here under:

¶61

7 -

¶62

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶63

HC-KAR

¶64

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು�ೇಂದ� ನಗರ�ಾ��ೆ ,

¶65

ಅಪರಆಯುಕ�ರು ( ಕಂ�ಾಯ ) ರವರಕ�ೇ� , �ೕ - �ಾ� , ಎಂ . � . ರ ೆ� , �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು -

¶66

560001

¶67

ಅ.ಆ.(ಕ)/ �ೆಂ.�ೇಂ.ನ.�ಾ/&.ಆ'/225/2/2025-26 -.ಾಂಕ:18/12/2025

¶68

3ಷಯ : ಅ5ಕಪ�6ಾರದ�ೕ7ೆ 89ೕಜ.ೆ ;ಾಡುವಬ>ೆ? .

¶69

�ೕಲAಂಡ 3ಷಯ�ೆA ಸಂಬಂ5CದಂDೆ, F�ೕ ಲGHI �ೆ. ಕಂ�ಾಯ ;ೌಲK;ಾಪಕರು ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಅ5�ಾ� (ಕಂ�ೇ>ೌಡನಗರ) ಕ�ೇ�ಯ�L �ಾಯM8ವMNಸುO�ರುವ ಇವರನುQ ಕಂ�ಾಯ 36ಾಗದ �ೆಲಸ �ಾಯMಗಳ NತದೃTUVಂದ ಈ ತGಣ-ಂದ Yಾ�>ೆ ಬರುವಂDೆ ಅ5ಕ ಪ�6ಾರದ �ೕ7ೆ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಅ5�ಾ� (�ೆಂ�ೇ>ೌಡನಗರ) ಹು�ೆ[ಯ�L ಮುಂ-ನ ಆ�ೇಶದವ]ೆ>ೆ �ಾಯM8ವMNಸಲು ಸೂ_C�ೆ.

¶70

F�ೕಮO ;ಾದು� ಕೂಟa, ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಅ5�ಾ� ರವರು ಮುಂ-ನ ಸbಳ8ಯುc�>ಾa ಅಪರ ಆಯುಕ�ರು (ಕಂ�ಾಯ) ರವರ ಕ�ೇ�ಯ�L ವರ- ;ಾd�ೊಳeಲು ಸೂ_C�ೆ.

¶71

�ೕಲAಂಡ ಆ�ೇಶದನfಯ C.g.C. ಪ�OಯನುQ ಈ ಕ�ೇ�>ೆ ಕಳhNC�ೊಡಲು ಸೂ_C�ೆ.

¶72

;ಾನK ಆಯುಕ�ರು ರವರ ಆ�ೇಶದಂDೆ)

ಅಪರಆಯುಕ�ರು ( ಕಂ�ಾಯ )

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು �ೇಂiರ ನಗರ

�ಾ��ೆ

So also the impugned officer Order at Annexure - Q is

¶77

as under.

¶78

8 -

¶79

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶80

HC-KAR

¶81

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು �ೇಂದ� ನಗರ �ಾ��ೆ,

¶82

G¥À DAiÀÄÄPÀÛgÀÄ ( DqÀ½vÀ ) ರವರಕ�ೇ� , 17 £ÉÃ ªÀÄºÀr, ¦.AiÀÄÄ.©. PÀlÖqÀ, �ೕ - �ಾ� ,

¶83

ಎಂ . � . ರ ೆ� , �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು -560001

¶84

G¥À.D.(D)/¨ÉA.PÉÃA.£À.¥Á/¦Dgï/ 445/2025-26 ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.02.2026

¶85

ಕ�ೇ�ಆ�ೇಶ

¶86

3ಷಯ : ಸ�ಾಯಕಕಂ�ಾಯಅ5�ಾ�ಯವರನುQ 89ೕಜ.ೆ ;ಾಡುವಬ>ೆ? .

¶87

�ೕಲAಂಡ 3ಷಯ�ೆA ಸಂಬಂ5CದಂDೆ , ಪ�ಸು�ತ ಸbಳ 8�ೕGjೆಯ�Lರುವ F�ೕಮO . ;ಾಧು� �ೋಟa , ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಅ5�ಾ� ಇವರನುQ �ೆಂಗಳ�ರು �ೇಂದ� ನಗರ �ಾ��ೆಯ ಚು.ಾವjೆ �ೆಲಸ �ಾಯMಗಳ NDಾದೃTUVಂದ ತGಣ-ಂದ Yಾ�>ೆ ಬರುವಂDೆ ಸ�ಾಯಕ ಕಂ�ಾಯ ಅ5�ಾ� ( �ೆಂ�ೇ>ೌಡನಗರ ) ಹು�ೆ[ಯ�L mೇತನ ಪnೆದು ಓಓd ಆpಾರದ �ೕ7ೆ ಚು.ಾವjೆ 36ಾಗದ�L �ಾಯM 8ವMNಸಲು 89ೕ�Cಆ�ೇFC�ೆ .

¶88

�ೕಲAಂಡಆ�ೇಶದನfಯCgCಪ�OಯನುQ ಈಕ�ೇ�>ೆ ಕಳhNC�ೊಡಲು ಸೂ_C�ೆ .

¶89

;ಾನK ಆಯುಕ�ರುರವರಅನುqೕದ.ೆಯ�ೕ]ೆ>ೆ

¶90

ಅಪರಆಯುಕ�ರು ( ಕಂ�ಾಯ )

¶91

�ೆಂಗಳ�ರು�ೇಂದ� ನಗರ�ಾ��ೆ

¶92

As can be seen from the impugned office Orders at Annexure - A dated 18.12.2025 and Annexure - Q dated 05.02.2026, the petitioner is sought to be transferred without providing any place/post which is contrary to the principles laid down in Sri.Arun Kumar's case supra , wherein it is laid as under:

¶93

9 -

¶94

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶95

HC-KAR

¶96

"ORAL ORDER

¶97

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶98

Questioning the correctness and legality of order dated 21.04.2025 in Application No.461/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, (for short ‘Tribunal’), the petitioner is before this Court. Under impugned order, the petitioner’s prayer to quash the Notification dated 29.01.2025 posting fourth respondent in his place without providing any posting is rejected.

¶99

2. The brief facts of the case are that:

¶100

The petitioner was working as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi North District, Chikkodi, in pursuance to Notification dated 29.12.2022 (Annexure-Assessing Authority). Under Notification dated 29.01.2025, the fourth respondent was posted in the place of petitioner as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Belagavi North District, Chikkodi and petitioner was directed to report before the competent authority. Accordingly, it is stated that petitioner reported before the competent authority i.e., Government on 07.02.2025. Questioning the said Notification dated 29.01.2025, posting fourth respondent in his place, the petitioner approached the Tribunal in the above said Application No.461/2025. The Tribunal under impugned order, rejected the petitioner’s application holding that petitioner has completed his tenure at Belagavi North District, Chikkodi and further with an observation that when the petitioner has reported before the competent authority, the impugned order has been implemented and it is impermissible for the Tribunal to modify the implemented order. Questioning the said order of the Tribunal as well as the Notification posting fourth respondent in his place at Belagavi North Taluk, Chikkodi, the

¶101

10 -

¶102

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶103

HC-KAR

¶104

petitioner is before this Court in the present writ petition.

¶105

3. Heard Sri. Mali Ramachandra Appasaheb, learned counsel for the petitioner, Sri Shashikiran Shetty learned Advocate General along with Smt. Prathima Honnapura, learned Additional Advocate General and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned AGA for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Notice to respondent No.4 was deferred vide Court order dated 04.01.2025. Perused the entire petition papers.

¶106

4. Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset submitted that for the last nearly one year, the petitioner is not provided with any posting. It is submitted that the respondent No.4 was posted in the place of petitioner without providing any posting to the petitioner. It is stated that the petitioner reported before the State Government on 07.02.2025 and since then, the petitioner is not provided posting. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner would be satisfied if a posting is given to him. He also points out that the petitioner’s alternate prayer is only to direct respondents to provide posting to the petitioner.

¶107

5. Taking note of the above submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner and alternative prayer of the petitioner, this Court by order dated 08.01.2026 directed the respondents to provide posting to the petitioner by 13.01.2026. On 13.01.2026, learned AGA produced Government Notification bearing No.AE.12.EPS.2026 dated 12.01.2026 providing posting to the petitioner as Deputy Commissioner of Excise, Head Office, Bengaluru. On 13.01.2026, this Court directed the first respondent – Principal Secretary, Finance Department (Excise) to file an affidavit explaining the reasons for not providing posting to the petitioner for nearly one year and also to indicate in the affidavit the officers who are responsible for providing posting to officers who have not been provided posting. Mr.

¶108

11 -

¶109

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶110

HC-KAR

¶111

Ritish Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Secretary to Government Finance Department, filed an affidavit dated 19.01.2026 and Paragraph No. 2 therein reads as follows:

¶112

“2. The present Affidavit is being filed in compliance with the direction of the Hon’ble Court by order, Dated 13.01.2026, to the first respondent – Principal Secretary to furnish information, by way of affidavit.

¶113

The post of Deputy Commissioner-II, Central Office, Bengaluru has been vacant since 04.11.2025. There are total 04 Group A officers and 20 Group ‘C’ officials awaiting posting for more than a month as on 13.01.2026. The list of the Group-A officers awaiting posting for more than one month is enclosed herewith and marked as Anenxure-R1.

¶114

Further after approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister postings have been given to the said 04 Group ‘A’ officers vide Notification No.FD 13 EPS 2026, Dated 14.01.2026 and No. FD 176 EPX 2025 (Part-1), Dated:19.01.2026 (AnnexureR2). As per the rules in force the postings of group ‘C’ officers who attend the transfer counseling and chose the places of their choice. But 19 could not join their designated place of posting due to various pending litigations. Further as per The Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers/Officials) Rules, 2025 posting of Group-A is to be issued by the Government with the approval of Hon’ble Excise Minister and Hon’ble Chief Minister. The postings of the Group-B, C and D can be made by the Commissioner of Excise. However, any transfer being made outside general transfer period requires approval of the Hon’ble Chief Minister. The list of Officials is enclosed herewith and marked as Anenxure-R3.”

¶115

The above said affidavit filed was not in terms of the direction issued by this Court. Therefore, the

¶116

12 -

¶117

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶118

HC-KAR

¶119

Additional Chief Secretary was directed to file another affidavit in terms of order dated 13.01.2026. Accordingly, affidavit dated 22.01.2026 of Mr. Ritish Kumar Singh, Additional Chief Secretary to Government Finance Department came to be filed. Paragraph Nos.3(a) to 3(k) read as follows:

¶120

“3. I respectfully submit that the delay in giving posting to the petitioner was not deliberate, but, due to administrative reasons, which are as follows:

¶121

a) After the petitioner was displaced by the 4th Respondent, by Notification, dated 29.01.2025 (Annexure-A8), and he reported to the competent authority on 07.02.2025;

¶122

b) Immediately, thereafter on 17.02.2025, the File No.53 EPS 2025 of the petitioner, was forwarded to the Office of the Chief Minister through the Excise Minister for approval, with a list of the available vacancies.

¶123

c) Once again, the File No.65 EPS 2025 of the petitioner, with available vacancies, was forwarded on 12.03.2025 to the Office of the Excise Minister and the said file was forwarded on 11.04.2025 from the Office of the Excise Minister to the Chief Minister for approval and Chief Minister approved on 19.05.2025 and returned back the file with the remark that it should be decided by the Excise Minister.

¶124

d) In view of the Excise Department's General Transfer Guidelines 2025-26, which provided that the Excise Minister has the power to transfer, the File No.65 EPS 2025 of the petitioner, was returned to the Office of the Excise Minister, from the Office of the Chief Minister on 19.05.2025 for appropriate decision on posting of the Petitioner by the Excise Minister. The guidelines is produced herewith as Annexure-R1.

¶125

e) Although the Petitioner's File No.AaE 176 EPS 2025, which was approved by the Excise Minister for posting him as Deputy Commissioner of on

¶126

13 -

¶127

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶128

HC-KAR

¶129

31.07.2025, since the Excise, Bellari, Petitioner was under suspension by Order dated 14.11.2024 (which had been stayed by the Hon'ble KSAT on 25.11.2024 in Application No.13377/2024), the said File No.AaE 176 EPS 2025 was re-submitted to the Excise Minister for revising of his posting to a non-executive post as per the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025.

¶130

f) By 31.07.2025, the power of Excise Minister to approve the transfer under Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025 came to an end. Hence, file No.176 EPS 2025 was once again re-submitted to the Office of the Chief Minister on 02.09.2025 through the Office of the Excise Minister.

¶131

g) Thereafter, on 28.10.2025, once again approval was given by the Chief Minister for posting of the Petitioner to the executive post of Deputy Commissioner, Bellary. Therefore, again, on 11.11.2025, a proposal was sent by File No.176 EPS 2025 to the Office of the Chief Minister for revising the posting to a non-executive post.

¶132

h) In the meantime, on 19.12.2025, the Hon'ble KSAT in A. No.13377/2024, quashed the order of suspension of the Petitioner, dated 14.11.2024, with liberty to the Disciplinary Authority to proceed and conclude the enquiry within six months.

¶133

i) When the present Writ Petition came up for hearing before this Hon'ble Court on 04.12.2025, this Hon'ble Court was pleased to grant time till 11.12.2025 to the official respondents to clarify on the time required to give posting to the petitioner. However, due to the commencement of the Winter Session of the State Legislature on 08.12.2025, in Belagavi, there was delay in taking a decision regarding the posting of the petitioner to a nonexecutive post.

¶134

14 -

¶135

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶136

HC-KAR

¶137

j) The matter was next posted before the Hon'ble Court on 08.01.2026, time was granted time till 13.01.2026 to provide posting to the petitioner.

¶138

k) On 12.01.2025, posting was given to the petitioner to the non-executive post of Deputy Commissioner of Excise-2, Central Office, Bengaluru, and the same was furnished to the Hon'ble Court along with the Memo, dated 13.01.2026. The petitioner has reported to the post on 16.01.2026.”

¶139

From the reading of the above, it is clear that though there was vacancy of the Deputy Commissioner of Excise, the Government took its own time to take decision to give posting and only on direction of this Court, posting was given to the petitioner under Notification dated 12.01.2026.

¶140

6. When an officer is transferred without providing any posting asking him to report before the competent authority, making him to wait for posting months together or years together would lead to payment of salary to such Government servant without extracting any work from him. Transfer without providing any posting would result in compulsory waiting and the Government shall have to pay salary to such official for sitting at home without any work. This amounts to irresponsible utilization of public money and mismanagement of tax payers money. To avoid such circumstances, the Government shall not transfer an officer/official without providing posting and even if transfer is effected without providing posting, such officer shall not be relieved until he is provided with a posting.

¶141

7. In an identical fact situation, this Court in MISS. SEEMA vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA DEPARTMENT OF FOREST, ENVIRONMENT AND ECOLOGY AND OTHERS, 2016 SCC OnLine Kar

¶142

15 -

¶143

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶144

HC-KAR

¶145

8202 , has deprecated the practice of lifting an officer from one post without providing posting. This Court has also observed that such practice of lifting an officer without providing posting would keep such an officer in lurch about his next posting.

¶146

8. In the above circumstances, the following:-

¶147

ORDER

¶148

i) The writ petition stands disposed of. ii) The respondents – State shall not transfer an officer/official without providing a posting to him on his transfer.

¶149

iii) Directing a transferred officer/official to report before competent authority would not amount to providing posting.

¶150

iv) If the State transfers an officer/official without providing any posting to him, then such officer/official who is not provided posting shall not be relieved of his duties in the previous post until he is provided with posting.

¶151

v) If an officer/official is transferred without providing him posting and if he is relieved from his previous post, until he is given next posting, salary and allowances paid to such Government servant during his compulsory waiting period, shall be recovered from the officer who is vested with the power to effect such transfer, i.e., the Secretary to Government or Head of the Department or any other officer as the case may be, forthwith.

¶152

vi) Registry is directed to forward copy of this order to the Chief Secretary, State of Karnataka for circulation among the

¶153

16 -

¶154

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶155

HC-KAR

¶156

Secretaries and the Heads of Department.”

¶157

It is also pertinent to note that the impugned transfer Order having been passed on 18.12.2025 within a period of 2 years is contrary to the transfer guidelines issued by the State Government at Annexure - L, in particular Rules 7 and 8, which mandate that except under circumstances mentioned therein, any transfer within the stipulated period of 2 years would be premature without complying with the requirements of the said guidelines.

¶158

Under these circumstances, I am of the considered

¶159

opinion that the impugned transfer orders at Annexures - A and Q are contrary to law and facts warranting interference by this Court in the present condition.

¶160

In the result, I pass the following:-

¶161

ORDER

¶162

(i) Petition is hereby allowed .

¶163

(ii) The impugned Annexure - A dated 18.12.2025 and Annexure - Q dated 05.02.2026 are hereby quashed.

¶164

17 -

¶165

NC: 2026:KHC:20201 WP No. 1136 of 2026

¶166

HC-KAR

¶167

(iii) The respondents are directed to pay the arrears of salary payable to the petitioner immediately upon receipt of a copy of this order without considering / treating the period from 18.12.2025, till the petitioner reports to duty as a period of unauthorised absence.

¶168

(iv) Liberty is however reserved in favour of the respondents to initiate appropriate proceeding against the petitioner in accordance with law subject to all just exceptions.

¶169

Sd/(S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE

¶170

BH List No.: 1 Sl No.: 20

Mrs. Madhuri S Kotagi v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mrs. Madhuri S Kotagi 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

Kiran Kumar. a. H. Vs the State of Karnataka

Dr Ahmed Abdul Fazal Vs University of Agricultural Sciences

Dr. Poornesh Gowda M S Vs Rajya Vakkaligara Sangha

Smt Lakshmi Devi Vs the State of Karnataka

Anuradha Vs State of Karantaka

Keb Engineers Association Vs the State of Karnataka