Lakshmiprasad N v Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

Lakshmiprasad N v Vs the Managing Director — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Primary relief effectively granted: the Divisional Establishment Order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-K) quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned; Corporation directed to accord them an opportunity before proceeding further; petitioners permitted to submit representations on salary recoveries within four weeks, to be considered by the Corporation in accordance with law.

Issue for consideration

Whether the Divisional Establishment Order No.525/2023-24 dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-K) issued by the second respondent should be quashed by way of writ of certiorari, insofar as the petitioners are concerned. +1 more

Court's answer

Acting on the Corporation's own concession that the Divisional Establishment Order dated 16.01.2024 (Annexure-K) was passed without hearing the petitioners, the order is quashed insofar as the petitioners are concerned.

Ratio / Principle

The Corporation is directed to accord the petitioners an opportunity (hearing per principles of natural justice) before proceeding further in the matter.

Key takeaways

As regards the amounts recovered from their salaries pursuant to Annexure-K, the petitioners are given liberty to submit representations within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order.ratio¶¶52
Upon receipt of such representations, the Corporation shall consider them in accordance with the law.ratio¶¶52

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Six employees of KSRTC (Kolar Division) filed a Writ Petition (S-KSRTC) under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India seeking certiorari against the Divisional Establishment Order No.525/2023-24 dated 16.01.2024 (reference No.KARASA/KOVI/SIBBANDI/C2/3166/2023-24, Annexure-K) issued by the Divisional Controller, KSRTC Kolar Division, insofar as they were concerned. Counsel for the Corporation, on instructions, conceded that the order had been passed without hearing the petitioners and undertook to follow the principles of natural justice and afford them an opportunity. Taking note of this submission, the Hon'ble Ms. Justice Jyoti M quashed the order as far as the petitioners were concerned and directed the Corporation to accord them an opportunity before proceeding further in the matter. On the grievance that the Corporation had recovered certain amounts from the petitioners' salaries pursuant to the order, the petitioners were given liberty to submit representations within four weeks from receipt of the certified copy of the order, and the Corporation undertook to consider them in accordance with law. With these observations, the Writ Petition was disposed of on 10 June 2026. No precedents were cited; no monetary quantum was specified.

1 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27893 WP No. 16319 of 2024

HC-KAR

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M

WRIT PETITION NO. 16319 OF 2024 (S-KSRTC)

BETWEEN:

LAKSHMIPRASAD N.V.,

S/O. VENKATARAMAPPA, AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT NILATURU, HOGALAGERI POST, SRINIVASAPURA TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 138.

SANTHOSH R., S/O. RAMEGOWDA G., AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, R/AT G.NAYAKARA HALLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563 126.

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

NIRMAL KUMAR G., S/O. JYOTHINATHAN P., AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS,

R/AT NO.275, MUSKAM 'B' BLOCK, BAJANA KOVIL STREET, ANDERSONPET POST, BANGARPETE, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 113.

HARISHA M.,

S/O. H.M.MUNIYAPPA., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, R/AT HOLERA HALLI, BENGALURU RURAL TALUK AND DISTRICT-562110.

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:27893 WP No. 16319 of 2024

HC-KAR

SURENDRA S., S/O. SUGUMAR P., AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, R/AT NO.231, 9TH CROSS, VIJAYANAGARA, KGF, BANGARPETE TALUK, KOLAR DISTRICT-563 115.

SRINIVASA MURTHY S.V., S/O. S.M.VENKATESHAPPA, AGED ABOUT 24 YEARS, R/AT SINGADAHALLI, KOLAR TALUK AND DISTRICT-563101.

…PETITIONERS

(BY SRI. M.C.BASAVARAJU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

THE MANAGING DIRECTOR K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL OFFICES, K.H.ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027.

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., KOLAR DIVISION, KOLAR-563101.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

3 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27893 WP No. 16319 of 2024

HC-KAR

ORAL ORDER

Sri.M.C.Basavaraju., counsel for the petitioners and Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the respondents have appeared in person.

The petition is filed seeking following reliefs:

i. Issue a writ in the name of writ of certiorari by quashing the impugned order bearing No.KARASA/KOVI/SIBBANDI/C2/3166/2023-24 vide divisional establishment order bearing No.525/2023-24 dated 16/01/2024 vide Annexure-K to the writ petition issued by the second respondent in so far as the petitioners are concerned.

ii. Pass such other order or orders as this Hon'ble Court may deem fit to grant under the facts and circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

Counsel for the Corporation on instructions fairly submits that the Divisional Establishment Order dated:16.01.2024 vide Annexure-K has been passed without hearing the petitioners. Hence, she submits that the Corporation shall follow the

4 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27893 WP No. 16319 of 2024

HC-KAR

principles of natural justice and accord an opportunity to the petitioners to put forth their grievance and then proceed with the matter.

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with care and the submission made on behalf of the Corporation is placed on record.

Taking note of the said submission, the order dated:16.01.2024 vide Annexure-K is quashed as far as the petitioners are concerned. The Corporation shall accord an opportunity to the petitioners before proceedings further in the matter.

Lastly, counsel for the petitioners submits that pursuant to Annexure-K, the Corporation has recovered certain amounts from the salary of the petitioners. Hence, he submits that an appropriate order may be passed.

By way of reply to this contention, counsel for the Corporation submits that as far as recovery of the amount is concerned, the petitioners may submit representations and the Corporation will consider the same in accordance with the law.

5 -

NC: 2026:KHC:27893 WP No. 16319 of 2024

HC-KAR

The oral submission made by counsel for the respective parties is placed on record.

The grievance about the recovery of the amounts of the petitioners is concerned, the petitioners are at a liberty to submit a representations within four weeks from the receipt of certified copy of this order. Upon receipt of the same, the Corporation shall consider the representations in accordance with the law thereon.

With the above observations, the Writ Petition is

disposed of .

SD/(JYOTI M) JUDGE

MRP List No.: 1 Sl No.: 60