- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF APRIL, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 11833 OF 2026 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. DEVARAJ D. L. S/O LATE LAKSHMANA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O/O MANAGING DIRECTOR KARNATAKA NIRAVARI NIGAMA LIMITED COFFEE BOARD, BENGALURU-560001 R/AT NO.B8/39, BALAVA SADANA 2ND CROSS, CENTRAL EXCISE LAYOUT R.K. HEGDE NAGAR, BENGALURU-560077. 2. SRI INDUKUMAR PATIL K.M. S/O K. MALLIKARJUNAPPA AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER VJNL, YETTINAHOLE PROJECT SUB DIVISION NO.11, ARASIKERE, HASSAN DISTRICT-573201 R/AT NO.07, 2ND FLOOR, 8TH CROSS BHADRAPPA LAYOUT, KODIGEHALLI BENGALURU-560092. 3. SRI KISHORE KUMAR K S/O C. KRISHNAPPA AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER NO.2(G) SUB DIVISION, Digitally signed by NANJUNDACHARI Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 K.R.SAGARA, SRIRANGAPATNA TALUK MANDYA DISTRICT-571420 R/AT NO.237, 6TH CROSS, LAXMIDEVINAGAR, NANDINI LAYOUT BENGALURU-560096. 4. SRI SARADAR S/O PEER SAAB AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O/O SUPERINTENDING ENGINEER KRSM AND MIP CIRCLE CNNL, MANDYA-571401 R/AT 02, I FLOOR, C.K.ROAD NEAR DOOM LIGHT CIRCLE CHANNAPATNA-562160. 5. SRI GANESH C S/O CHIKKANNA N.V. AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER KABINI RESERVOIR SUB DIVISION KABINI COLONY, H.D.KOTE TALUK MYSURU DISTRICT-570001 R/AT HORA UPPARABEDI, NEAR VETERINARY HOSPITAL BETTADAPURA-571102, MYSORE DISTRICT. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. VIJAYA KUMAR, ADV.) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY MINOR IRRIGATION AND GROUNDWATER DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY WATER RESOURCES DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. THE CHIEF ENGINEER MINOR IRRIGATION DEPARTMENT (SOUTH) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. B RAVINDRANATH, AGA) THIS PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO I) SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 25/03/2026 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU, IN APPLICATION NOS. 1958-62/2026 VIDE ANNEXURE-A AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AND II) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER. 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 K.V. ARAVIND) Heard learned counsel Sri.Vijaya Kumar for petitioners and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri.B.Ravindranath for respondents. 2. The petitioners filed Application Nos.1958 to 1962 of 2026 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (for short “the Tribunal”), seeking the following reliefs: (i) To issue a writ of mandamus or any other appropriate writ or order directing the 1st respondent to extend the period of seeking option from the concerned employees who intend to get permanently absorbed in the 1st respondent Department for a further period of 15 - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 days from the last date prescribed for exercising the option notified in the Notification dated 14.11.2025 (Vide Annexure-A2) within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal; (ii) To direct the respondents to consider the joint representation dated 13.01.2026 submitted by the applicant Nos.1 to 3 (vide Annexure-A3) within a time limit to be stipulated by this Hon’ble Tribunal; and (iii) To pass such other order as this Hon’ble Tribunal deems fit in the facts and circumstances of the case.” 3. The Registry of the Tribunal raised an objection regarding the maintainability of the applications in view of section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985 (for short, “the Act”). The Tribunal, under the impugned order, while sustaining the objection raised by the Registry, rejected the applications as premature, while reserving liberty to the petitioners to file fresh applications after the expiry of six months from the date of the representation dated 13.01.2026. 4. Sri Vijaya Kumar, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners, submits that the applications were filed seeking two fold reliefs. The first prayer was for issuance of a writ of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 mandamus to extend the timeline prescribed under the notification dated 14.11.2025 by a further period of 15 days. The second prayer was to direct consideration of the representation dated 13.01.2026. It is contended that section 20 of the Act is not applicable insofar as the first prayer is concerned. It is further contended that the Tribunal committed an error in rejecting the applications as premature. 5. Per contra, Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondents, submits that the representation is dated 13.01.2026 and that the applications came to be filed on 03.03.2026. It is contended that, in view of section 20 of the Act, the applicants are required to await consideration of the representation for a period of six months. Hence, he submits that the order passed by the Tribunal is justified. 6. We have considered the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for both the parties. 7. The representation is dated 13.01.2026. The second prayer sought in the applications is to direct the respondents to - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 consider the said representation dated 13.01.2026. The applications before the Tribunal came to be filed on 03.03.2026. In terms of section 20(2)(b) of the Act, an aggrieved person is required to wait for a period of six months from the date of the representation for its consideration. In the present case, however, the petitioners preferred the applications even before the expiry of two months. Therefore, the order of the Tribunal, insofar as prayer No. 2 is concerned, is in conformity with section 20 of the Act. 8. The first prayer sought in the applications is not governed by the timeline prescribed under Section 20 of the Act. Therefore, the Tribunal ought to have considered the first prayer on its own merits, instead of rejecting the applications in their entirety as premature. 9. In the light of the above, the following: ORDER a) The order of the Tribunal dated 25.03.2026 in Applications No.1958 to 1962 of 2026 is hereby set aside. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:21184-DB WP No. 11833 of 2026 b) Applications No.1958 to 1962 of 2026 are to be restored. c) The Tribunal is directed to consider the first prayer, without applying section 20 of the Administrative Tribunals Act, 1985. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE NC CT:bms List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25