- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30287-DB WA No. 1461 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE AND THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA WRIT APPEAL NO.1461 OF 2026 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. B.P. GANAPATHY S/O LATE B.B. PONNAPPA, AGED ABOUT 75 YEARS, R/O KONAJAGERI VILLAGE, PARANE POST, NAPOKLU NAD, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 214. 2. PALEYANDA A. BASAPPA S/O LATE PALEYANDA AIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 63 YEARS, R/O PALANGALA VILLAGE, KEDAMULLOOR POST, VIRAJPET TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 218. 3. K.A. LAVAKUMAR S/O LATE K. APPACHU AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, 4. K.A. KUSHAKUMAR S/O K. APPACHU, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, APPELLANT NOS.3 & 4 ARE R/O PODAVADA VILLAGE, ARAPATTU POST, Digitally signed by C K LATHA Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30287-DB WA No. 1461 of 2026 NAPOKLU HOBLI, MADIKERI TALUK, KODAGU DISTRICT-571 214. 5. C.K. POOVANNA S/O C.K. KALAIAH, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, R/O NO.9, SOUTH COORG CLUB BUILDING, GENERAL THIMMAIAH ROAD, VIRAJPET, KODAGU-571218 WORKING AS ELECTED PRESIDENT, BAR ASSOCIATION OF VIRAJPET. …APPELLANTS (BY SRI. SACHIN B.S., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF LAW, JUSTICE AND HUMAN RIGHTS, ROOM NO.33, GROUND FLOOR, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. THE REGISTRAR GENERAL HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA, OPPOSITE TO VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. B. SUKANYA BALIGA, ADDITIONAL GOVERNMENT ADVOCATE FOR R-1) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 26.03.2026 PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN W.P.NO.6574/2026 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE WRIT PETITION IN W.P.NO.6574/2026 AS PRAYED FOR. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30287-DB WA No. 1461 of 2026 THIS APPEAL COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE and HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE K.S. HEMALEKHA ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MR. VIBHU BAKHRU, CHIEF JUSTICE) 1. The appellants have filed the present appeal impugning an order dated 26.03.2026 [impugned order] passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No. 6574/2026 (GM-RES). 2. The appellants claim to be the office bearers of the Virajpet Bar Association and had filed the Writ Petition impugning a Government Notification dated 12.12.2025, whereby the jurisdiction of 7 villages had been withdrawn from the Courts at Virajpet and allocated to the Courts at Kodagu-Madikeri. The appellants contend that the transfer of jurisdiction in respect of those 7 villages would result in the transfer of 445 cases to the Courts in Madikeri, which already has a large workload. It is stated that the number of cases pending in Courts in Madikeri is greater than that in Virajpet. Thus, the transfer of the jurisdiction in respect of the 7 villages to the Courts at Madikeri lacks a statistical basis. Additionally, it is - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30287-DB WA No. 1461 of 2026 stated that the distance between the villages in question and Virajpet is only 15 Kilometres while the distance to Madikeri is 43 Kilometres. Thus, the litigants would be compelled to travel an additional 30 Kilometres for every hearing. 3. The impugned notification indicates that the transfer of jurisdiction is pursuant to the re-organization and re-allocation of jurisdiction on account of formation of a new Taluk. The learned Single Judge had noted that the said decision was undertaken to streamline judicial administration, ensure accessibility, and cater to the needs of the litigant public at large. In our view, the learned Single Judge has rightly held that such administrative policy decisions, unless they are demonstrated to be arbitrary, mala fide, or in violation of statutory provisions, are not amenable to judicial review. In view of the above, we are not persuaded to accept that the reorganisation or reallocation of jurisdiction, which is occasioned by the formation of a new Taluk, satisfies the grounds warranting any judicial interference. 4. The mere inconvenience to some litigants or members of the particular Bar is not sufficient to invalidate a decision made in the - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:30287-DB WA No. 1461 of 2026 larger public interest. We concur with the decision of the learned Single Judge. Accordingly, the present appeal is dismissed. Sd/- (VIBHU BAKHRU) CHIEF JUSTICE Sd/- (K.S. HEMALEKHA) JUDGE CKL List No.: 2 Sl No.: 10