- 1 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:29 WP No. 66530 of 2011 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, DHARWAD BENCH DATED THIS THE 6TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION NO.66530 OF 2011 (S-KSRTC) BETWEEN: SRI LINGARAJ S/O. SHIVAPPA LATHI, AGE: 43 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT WORKS, SUPERINTENDENT (NWKRTC), R/O: BELGAUM DEPOT, BELGAUM DIVISION, DIST: BELGAUM. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. H. BAGI, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE MANAGING DIRECTOR (TECHNICAL), NWKRTC, CENTRAL OFFICE, GOKUL ROAD, HUBBALLI - 580 030, DIST: DHARWAD. 2. THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER NWKRTC, BELGAVI DIVISION, BELGAVI - 590 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI PRASHANT HOSAMANI, ADVOCATE FOR R1; NOTICE TO R2 IS SERVED) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227N OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE ORDER PASSED BY THE 1st RESPONDENT IN NO.NWKRS: KEK: HU: PRAVYA (TAM): SHISTU: 1685 (2010-11) 1436, DATED 09/08/2011, ANNEXURE-E, BY ALLOWING THIS WRIT PETITION AND ETC., THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THREIN AS UNDER: Digitally signed by VISHAL NINGAPPA PATTIHAL Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:29 WP No. 66530 of 2011 ORAL ORDER (PER: THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA) 1. The petitioner is before this Court seeking the following prayer: “I. Issue a writ of certiorari quashing the order passed by the 1st Respondent in No. NWKRS: KEK: HU: PRAVYA (TAM): SHISTU: 1685 (2010-11) 1436, dated 09/08/2011, Annexure- E, by allowing this writ petition. II. Be pleased to pass such order or direction in the facts and circumstances of the case by allowing this writ petition in the interest of justice and equity.” 2. Heard the learned counsel Shri K.H. Bagi appearing for the petitioner and the learned counsel Shri Prashant Hosamani appearing for respondent No.1. 3. The issue in the lis revolves around a narrow compass, as the challenge is to an order of the Disciplinary Authority, dated 21.09.2011, which imposes a penalty of stoppage of one increment for a period of six months without cumulative effect. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC-D:29 WP No. 66530 of 2011 4. There is no interim order granted at the hands of this Court. Therefore, the penalty has spent itself as stoppage of increment, was without cumulative effect, for six months, it has got restored way back in the year 2011. Therefore, the exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India today would become an exercise in futility, and this Court would not issue futile writs. 5. Therefore, the writ petition is disposed off on the aforesaid. Sd/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE VNP/CT-ASC List No.: 1 Sl No.: 130