- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC:11632-DB WP No. 6206 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR N. V. ANJARIA, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN WRIT PETITION NO.6206 OF 2025 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. K SREEEDHAR S/O NARAYANACHAR K, AGED ABOUT 70 YEARS, R/O NO.352, 1ST FLOOR, 10TH MAIN, BSK I STAGE, 2ND BLOCK, 50 FEET ROAD, HANUMANTHANAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 050. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. K. SREEDHAR-PETITIONER-PARTY-IN-PERSON) AND: 1. HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR JUDICIAL, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR GENERAL, VIDHANA VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. Digitally signed by H K HEMA Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:11632-DB WP No. 6206 of 2025 …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA R/W RULE 14(1) OF THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA (PUBLIC INTEREST LITIGATION) RULES 2018, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF MANDAMUS DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT'S No-1 AND 2 TO STRICTLY FOLLOW RULE 12, 12(A) AND 13 OF CHAPTER XIII OF HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA RULES 1959 NOT TO POST MISCELLANEOUS MATTERS BEFORE THE COURT IN ALL CATEGORIES OF CASES AND POST THEM BEFORE THE REGISTRY ONLY FOR COMPLIANCE. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I.ARUN - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:11632-DB WP No. 6206 of 2025 ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR. JUSTICE N. V. ANJARIA) In this petition styled as public interest petition, learned party-in-person-petitioner, claims to be the practicing lawyer since 1977, would submit to the court that he has the practice of 48 years and that, therefore, in such capacity, the present petition is filed. 2. The prayer in this petition filed invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution reads as under, "Issue Writ in the nature of mandamus directing the Respondent's No.1 & 2 to strictly follow rule 12, 12(A) and 13 of chapter XIII of High Court of Karnataka Rules 1959 not to post miscellaneous matters before the court in all categories of cases and post them before the registry only for compliance." 3. Rule 12 and 12(A) of the High Court of Karnataka Rules, 1959 which is noted in the petition reads as under, "12. When notice issued to a party through Court is returned unserved, an intimation of that fact shall be given on the Notice Board of the Court. Such intimation shall be put upon the Notice Board on the first working day of every week and shall contain the following particulars:- - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:11632-DB WP No. 6206 of 2025 (i) the number of the proceeding on the file of the High Court; (ii) the name of the Advocate of the party at whose instance the notice was issued; and (iii) the name of the party not served and the reasons for non-service. Unless a different period is fixed by the Registrar which shall be noted in the aid intimation, the party or his Advocate at whose instance the original notice was issued, shall, except when the notice has not been served because the respondent is dead deposit into Court further process fee for the service of fresh notice and shall give particulars necessary for serving it within 10 days from the date on which the intimation is put up on the Notice Boards. If fresh notice is also returned unserved, the same procedure shall be repeated. 12(A) If notice is returned unserved for whatever reason the same shall be listed before the Registrar (Judicial) for compliance. The Registrar (Judicial) is entitled to grant to total period of six weeks for such compliance. In case where compliance is not made even after six weeks, the same shall be listed before the court for necessary orders." 4. The plank of the grievance of the petitioner is that the working of the said Rule leads to waste of the time of the court. It was sought to be submitted that miscellaneous matters should not be placed before the courts straightaway and that, it should go to the Registrar (Judicial). - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:11632-DB WP No. 6206 of 2025 5. The court is of the eminent view that for the grievance of such kind and nature, writ of mandamus is neither contemplated, nor for the plea in that regard is entertainable. Such matters are to be addressed and dealt with on the administrative side only. 6. The petition is thoroughly misconceived and it is dismissed with token costs of Rs.5,000/- to be paid to the Karnataka State Legal Services Authority within fifteen days. 7. At this stage, learned advocate for the petitioner requests that the cost part may be deleted. Taking a lenient view, looking to the aspect that the petitioner is a practicing advocate, the cost part is deleted. SD/- (N. V. ANJARIA) CHIEF JUSTICE SD/- (M.I.ARUN) JUDGE VMB List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6