- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36474-DB WP No. 27975 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 27975 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: SHRI SHIVAKUMAR M V S/O VEERAJAPPA AGED ABOUT 33 YEARS VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER DODDAMARAGOWDANAHALLI CIRCLE ILVALA HOBLI, MYSURU TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT R/AT FLAT NO.307, MADAHALLY JAYAPURA HOBLI, MYSURU, MYSURU TALUK AND DISTRICT-570 026. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER MYSURU DISTRICT, MYSURU-570 001. 3. THE TAHSILDAR MYSURU TALUK, MYSURU DISTRICT-571401. 4. SRI ARJUN RAI MAJOR VILLAGE ADMINISTRATIVE OFFICER CHANDAGALA CIRCLE Digitally signed by MARIGANGAIAH PREMAKUMARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36474-DB WP No. 27975 of 2025 K.R.NAGAR TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570 012. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R1 TO R3 SRI A VISHWANATH BHAT, ADV. FOR C/R4) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 09.09.2025 PASSED BY THE TRIBUNAL IN A.NO.4084/2025 (VIDE ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioner, learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath who has taken notice for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and learned counsel Sri.A.Vishwanath Bhat for respondent No.4/Caveator. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 2. The present writ petition is against the rejection of interim prayer of stay of impugned order of transfer dated 01.09.2025 under the impugned order dated - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36474-DB WP No. 27975 of 2025 09.09.2025 in Application No.4084/2025 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’). 3. Learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioner would submit that the findings of the Tribunal under impugned order would amount to disposing of the main application itself. The findings of the Tribunal would make the application before the Tribunal infructuous and as such he submits that interference is called for. Learned counsel would submit that the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that since respondent No.4 has reported to duty, the petitioner would not be entitled for interim prayer. 4. Several contentions are raised against the impugned interim order by both the learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5. At this stage, if we examine the contentions raised by the parties and give finding, it would affect the pending application before the Tribunal in one way or the - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:36474-DB WP No. 27975 of 2025 other. The contention that as the respondent No.4 has reported to duty, the petitioner would not be entitled for interim order as observed by the Tribunal may not be correct in all the cases. If the petitioner or the applicant makes out a prima-facie case, the Tribunal is bound to consider the interim prayer of the parties. In the instant case, any of the findings in the interim order shall not influence for disposal of the application. 6. With the above observations, writ petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 10