- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12543 WP No. 8856 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO. 8856 OF 2023 (KLR-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. RAJASHEKHARAPPA H.G. S/O GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, 2. SRI. RAMESH H.N. S/O NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, 3. SRI. H.S. SHANMUKAPPA S/O LATE C. SHEKERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, 4. SRI. MANJUNATH S/O LATE CHANDRAPPA, AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS, ALL ARE R/AT: H. MALLENAHALL, HADIKERE POST, AMRUTHAPURA HOBLI, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT PIN CODE – 577 228. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. PRAVEEN KUMARA N.K., ADVOCATE (ABSENT)) Digitally signed by SHARADAVANI B Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12543 WP No. 8856 of 2023 AND: 1. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT, DISTRICT FIELD ROAD, AZAD PARK, CHICKAMAGALURU – 577 101. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER TARIKERE SUB-DIVISION, HONNAVARA ROAD, INDRANAGAR, TARIKERE – 577 228. 3. THE TAHASILDAR TARIKERE TALUK, HONNAVARA ROAD, INDRANAGAR, TARIKERE – 577 228. 4. THE PANCHAYAT DEVELOPMENT OFFICER HADIKERE GRAMA PANCHYAT, HADIKERE, TARIKERE TALUK, CHICKMAGALURU DISTRICT – 577 228. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SHAMANTH NAIK, HCGP) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS TO THE R-1 TO 4 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION MADE BY THE PETITIONERS TO THE R-1 ON 04.03.2023, 21.03.2023 AND R-2 ON 31.03.2023 AND R-3 ON 30.03.2023 AND R-4 ON 31.03.2023 (PRODUCED AT ANNX-F, G, H AND J). - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:12543 WP No. 8856 of 2023 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE R DEVDAS ORAL ORDER On 13.02.2026, the following order was passed: "Finally, two weeks time is granted to the petitioners for compliance of office objections. If the office objections are not complied with, list this matter for final dismissal on 27.02.2026." 2. Matter is called out. There is no representation for the petitioners. 3. Office objections have not been complied with. 4. Consequently, the writ petition stands dismissed for non-compliance of office objections. Sd/- (R DEVDAS) JUDGE rv List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3