- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 21ST DAY OF JULY, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 20538 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) C/W WRIT PETITION NO. 20785 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) IN WP NO. 20538/2025 BETWEEN: 1. PRAKASH PATIL S/O SIDRAMAPA PATIL AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE-BUD-S, #542, 1ST FLOOR, 16TH CROSS, HAL 2ND STAGE, INDIRANAGAR, BANGALORE-560038 AND R/A NO.1409/A, 11TH MAIN ROAD, 2ND STAGE WEST OF CHORD ROAD, NAGAPURA, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU-560086. 2. BAHUBALI PARAPPA HULLOLI AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O PARAPPA HULLOLI, W/A EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT O/O DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, BANGALORE URBAN DISTRICT-02 BANGALORE -560043 AND R/A H/NO 1262,7TH B MAIN, 4TH CROSS, 2ND STAGE RPC LAYOUT, HAMPINAGAR, VIJAYANAGAR-560104. Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 3. VINOD DHANGE AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, S/O BASAVARAJ, W/A EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, O/O THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, ABAKARI BHAVANA, NEAR BYATARAYANPURA POLICE STATION BENGALURU AND R/A 1804, 18TH FLOOR, 9TH TOWER, SALARPURIA SATTVA DIVINITY, NEAR NAYANDHALLI PANTARAPLYA METRO STATION, BENGALURU- 560039. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR MS. M.L. SUVARNA, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE) 201-G, VIDHANA SOUDHA BENGALURU - 560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE 2ND FLOOR, TTMC A BLOCK, BMTC, K H ROAD, SHANTHI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560027. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR C/R1 TO R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 02/07/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/07/2025 (ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.2896 AND 2898/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INTERIM RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.2896 AND 2898/2025 (ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ETC. IN WP NO. 20785/2025 BETWEEN: 1. BASAVARAJ KARAMANNAVAR S/O DYAMAPPA KARAMANNANAVAR. AGE ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, OFFICE OF EXCISE SUPERINTENDENT, SUB-DIVISION-09- BUD-5 AND R/AT 3RD CROSS, NEAR NO.4 SCHOOL, BEERESHWARA NAGAR, RANEBENNUR, HAVERI, KARNATAKA- 581115. 2. PARAMESH.M. S/O LATE MARIDASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF EXCISE, SUB-DIVISION-14, BUD7 & R/AT NO.3637/36, KRISHNEGOWDA BUILDING 4TH CROSS, B BLOCK, GAYATHRINAGAR, NEAR SUBRAMANYANAGAR SRIRAMPURAM, BENGALURU 560021. ...PETITIONERS (BY SRI. S.M. CHANDRASHEKAR, SR. COUNSEL FOR SRI ADITHYA R CHAKRAGIRI, ADV.) - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE UNDER SECRETARY TO THE GOVERNMENT DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), 201-G, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 3. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 2ND FLOOR, TTMC, A BLOCK, BMTC, KH ROAD, SHANTI NAGAR, BENGALURU 560027. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI V SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR CR1 TO R3) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR THE ENTIRE RECORDS LEADING TO THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/07/2025 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND A) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 02/07/2025 (ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION) PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS.2868 AND 2869/2025 AND CONSEQUENTLY GRANT THE INTERIM RELIEF AS SOUGHT FOR BY THE PETITIONERS BEFORE THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE IN APPLICATION NOS. 2868 AND 2869/2025 (ANNEXURE-B TO THE WRIT PETITION) AND ETC. THESE PETITIONS, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Both the above writ petitions are directed against the common interim order dated 02.07.2025 passed in Applications No.2868 & 2869/2025 and Applications No.2896 to 2898/2025 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru Bench (for short “Tribunal”). Hence, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common order. 2. The brief facts of the case are that: The petitioners in W.P.No.20785/2025 are working as Deputy Superintendents of Excise. Whereas the petitioners in W.P.No.20538/2025 are working as Superintendent of Excise, in the Department of Excise. The petitioners were before the Tribunal, questioning the validity of Rules 2 (b), (c), 4, 5, 6 & 9 of the Karnataka Civil Services (Excise Department Officers and Officials Transfer) Rules, 2025 (for short “2025 Rules”) as unconstitutional, void and unenforceable. The petitioners - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 had sought for stay of the operation and implementation of 2025 Rules. The Tribunal under impugned order rejected and refused to stay the operation and implementation of the 2025 Rules. Questioning the said refusal of interim order, petitioners are before this Court in the above writ petitions. 3 Heard learned senior counsel Sri.S.M.Chandrasekhar for Sri.Aditya R.Chakragiri and learned counsel Smt.M.L.Suvarna for petitioners and Sri.Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General along with Sri.B.Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.S.M.Chandrasekhar would submit that 2025 Rules creates a disqualification in the matter of transfer and such disqualification is impermissible. Learned senior counsel referring to Rule 6(1) of 2025 Rules submit that the officers stated therein - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 who have completed minimum period of service in an Executive Post shall not be transferred to an Executive Post in the same District during the next transfer. It is submitted that such restriction is arbitrary, unreasonable and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. Further, learned senior counsel would submit that, before introducing the 2025 Rules, the Karnataka Public Service Commission is not consulted as required under Article 320 of the Constitution of India. It is also submitted that the State has not followed the procedure prescribed under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978. He would submit that rules were not placed before the Houses as required under Section 8 of the Karnataka State Civil Services Act, 1978, 5. Learned senior counsel would further submit that the Tribunal during the course of considering the interim prayer has given findings on all the issues and further submits that it has permitted the respondents to execute and implement 2025 Rules. It is also submitted that the - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 observations of the Tribunal during the course of interim order would affect the contentions of the petitioners at the time of final disposal of the applications by the Tribunal. 6. Learned senior counsel would also submit that the petitioners had approached this Court in W.P.No.14727/2025 and the said writ petition was disposed of, relegating the petitioners to avail remedy before the Tribunal. Before relegating the petitioners to the Tribunal, this Court had granted interim order not to precipitate the issue. 7. On the other hand, learned AAG Sri.Reuben Jacob would submit that 2025 Rules are introduced to regulate the transfers of officials in the Excise Department. Further, he submits that Rule 6 is neither arbitrary nor violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India and submits that it provides posting to every Officer to an Executive Post on rotation basis. Further, learned AAG would submit that the contentions raised by the petitioners - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 shall have to be considered by the Tribunal at the time of the disposal of the applications. Further, he submits that Rules shall always be presumed to be constitutional unless it is held otherwise. Thus, he prays for dismissal of the writ petitions. 8. On hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, the only point which falls for our consideration is as to whether the petitioners would be entitled for interim order of stay of 2025 Rules. 9. Answer to the above point would be in the negative for the following reasons: Rule 2(b), (c), 4, 5, 6 and 9 of 2025 Rules are under challenge. The 2025 Rules are introduced to regulate transfer of officials of Excise Department. The Hon'ble Apex Court in a catena of decisions, particularly in JAYA THAKUR v/s UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS reported in (2023)10 SCC 276 has held that there is always a - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 presumption in favour of the constitutionality of a statute and a law will not be declared unconstitutional unless the case is so clear as to be free from doubt. The contentions raised by the petitioners are to be considered by the Tribunal at the time of final disposal of the applications. At this interim stage, if the contentions of the petitioners are considered, it would affect either of the parties. Prima facie we are of the view that in terms of Rule 6(1) of 2025 Rules, the officials on completion of their minimum tenure in an Executive Post would not be entitled for Executive Post in the same District during the next transfer, which would mean that they would be entitled for Executive Post in the other districts. The petitioners are holding transferable posts and they can be transferred anywhere in the State. 10. The Tribunal, during the course of rejecting the interim prayer has made certain observations which would certainly affect the contentions of the petitioners. The Tribunal shall consider the main prayer of the petitioners - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 without being influenced by any of the findings recorded by the Tribunal in its impugned interim order dated 02.07.2025. This Court cannot find fault with the order of the Tribunal in observing that the respondents are at liberty to execute and implement 2025 Rules. Since, when once the interim order of stay of 2025 Rules is rejected, resultant position would be that the State could implement the 2025 Rules. 11. The contention that this Court granted interim order not to precipitate 2025 Rules, which was extended for a period of 3 weeks in W.P.No.14727/2025 would not in any way assist the petitioners. The petitioners are government servants, who approached this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India during Summer Vacation. This Court, noticing that the petitioners are government servants, relegated the petitioners to approach the Tribunal. While relegating the petitioners, it was observed that the respondents shall not precipitate the issue. There was no consideration of interim prayer of the petitioners - 12 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:27404-DB WP No. 20538 of 2025 C/W WP No. 20785 of 2025 and interim order not to precipitate the issue was not on hearing the parties. When it is a settled position that the provision or enactment is presumed to be constitutional, unless and until it is held otherwise, the petitioners would not be entitled for any interim relief. 12. For the reasons recorded above, we are not inclined to interfere with the interim order of the Tribunal in Applications No.2868-2869/2025 and Applications No.2896-2898/2025. Accordingly, both the writ petitions stand dismissed. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MPK CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 4