- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5285-DB RP No. 328 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 30TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF REVIEW PETITION NO. 328 OF 2025 BETWEEN: SMT.RAMYA H.D, AGED ABOUT 38 YEARS, W/O PRADEEP KUMAR.G, WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ARASIKERE RANGE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103. …PETITIONER (BY SMT.SUVARNA LAKSHMI.M.L., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF FINANCE (EXCISE), VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, 4 FLOOR, TTMC BUILDING, 'A' BLOCK, BMTC, K. H. ROAD, SHANTHINAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 027. 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OF EXCISE, HASSAN DISTRICT, HASSAN - 573 201. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5285-DB RP No. 328 of 2025 4. SMT. ROPPA BAI T., W/O. JAI PRAKASH T.B., AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, WAS WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, ARASIKERE RANGE, HASSAN DISTRICT - 573 103 UNDER AN ORDER OF POSTING AS INSPECTOR OF EXCISE, PANDAVAPURA SUB-DIVISION, MANDYA - 573 434. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA FOR R1 TO 3) THIS REVIEW PETITION IS FILED UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF THE CODE OF CIVIL PROCEDURE, PRAYING TO ALLOW THIS REVIEW PETITION, ORDER DATED 18.07.2025 PASSED IN WRIT PETITION NO.21138/2025 BY REVIEWING IT AND DIRECT THE AFOREMENTIONED WRIT PETITION FOR BEING POSTED FOR REHEARING AND DISPOSE OF THE SAME IN TERMS OF THE AFOREMENTIONED CIRCUMSTANCES. THIS PETITION IS 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 T.M.NADAF - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:5285-DB RP No. 328 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) Heard learned counsel Smt.Suvarna Lakshmi.M.L., for the review petitioner through video conferencing. The above review petition is filed under Order 47 Rule 1 of CPC to review the order dated 18.07.2025 in W.P.No.21138/2025, wherein the order of transfer in so far as respondent No.4 herein and the petitioner was quashed. By virtue of quashing the transfer order, consequences would follow. No error apparent on the face of record is pointed out to review the order. Accordingly, the Review Petition stands rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 1 Sl No.: 3P