SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(Online)(Kar) 22965

THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
S.R.Krishna Kumar, J
P. Mahesh – Appellant
Versus
State of Karnataka – Respondent
WP No. 10406 of 2026



Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: S. Rajashekar
For the Respondents: G. Ramesh Naik (AGA for R1 and R2), Siddanooru Vishwanatha (For R3)

State authorities are legally obligated to implement their own administrative transfer orders unless stayed or set aside by a competent court, and the pendency of a related appeal in the Supreme Court by a third party does not excuse the non-implementation of an independent directive.

Headnote:(A) Constitution of India - Articles 226 and 227 - Writ of Mandamus - Implementation of Government order - Petitioner sought direction to respondents to comply with communication dated 31.03.2026 - Court examined whether pending proceedings before Apex Court regarding a related transfer matter barred implementation of a distinct transfer order - Court held that administrative orders not specifically stayed or set aside must be implemented - Pendency of SLP by a third party does not absolve authorities of duty to implement their own directions regarding petitioner - Respondents directed to give effect to the order within two weeks. (Paras 1, 11 and 12)

Facts of the case:
The petitioner, a Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, challenged the failure of the State authorities to implement a departmental communication dated 31.03.2026 which directed him to report to his transferred posting. The State had previously issued a transfer notification on 05.12.2025, which saw multiple officers shuffled. While a co-officer’s related transfer was set aside by the High Court in a separate writ petition (WP No. 2972/2026), the petitioner’s specific transfer order remained largely unaffected, yet the respondents failed to execute the transfer.

Findings of Court:
The Court observed that the previous High Court judgment only addressed a specific officer's transfer. It held that the petitioner's transfer order remained intact and valid. The Court rejected the respondent's contention that pendency of an SLP before the Apex Court (filed by a third party) justified non-implementation of the departmental directive.

Issues: Whether the respondents are legally obligated to implement their own departmental communication directing the petitioner to report to his new posting, notwithstanding the pendency of a separate legal challenge by a third party in the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi: The Court held that unless an administrative order for transfer is stayed, modified, or set aside by a competent court, the State authorities are duty-bound to implement their own lawful directives, irrespective of collateral litigation initiated by other affected parties. Result : Writ petition allowed.

Table of Content
1. failure to implement departmental transfer orders constitutes a service grievance. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4)
2. pendency of litigation by third parties does not justify non-implementation of independent administrative orders. (Para 5 , 6 , 11)
3. valid administrative transfer orders must be executed unless explicitly set aside. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 12)

THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO-DIRECTING THE R2 TO COMPLY/ ADHERE TO THE DIRECTION ISSUED BY THE R1 IN THEIR LETTER DATED 31.03.2026 BEARING REFERENCE NO. CO 334 ECA 2025 VIDE ANNX-A AND CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE R2 TO CONSIDER THE REPRESENTATION SUBMITTED BY THE PETITIONER DATED 23.03.2026 VIDE ANNC-K.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR

ORAL ORDER

In this petition the petitioner seeks the following reliefs:

"a) Issue a Writ of Mandamus directing the 2nd respondent to comply/adhere to the direction issued by the 1st respondent in their letter dated 31.03.2026 bearing reference No.CO.334 ECA 2025 vide Annexure-A and consequently direct the Respondent 2 to consider the representation submitted by the petitioner dated 23.03.2026 vide Annexure-K

b) Issue any other writ or order or direction that deems fit to grant in the circumstances of the case in the interest of justice and equity.

c) Cost of this Writ Petition".

2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioner, learned AGA and learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondent No.3.

3. A perusal of the material on record will indicate that the petitioner was working as Joint Registrar of Co-Operative Societies (ICDP) office, Bangalore when the respondent issued an order dated 05.12.2025 purporting to transfer the petitioner to the post of Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Urban Bank Cell in the place of the respondent No.3-N. Venkatesh who was sought to be transferred to the Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore to the place of the one Dr. Umesha.G who in turn was sought to be transferred to the place of the petitioner. The aforesaid order of transfer dated 05.12.2025 whereby Dr. Umesha.G was sought to be transferred to the post of the petitioner assailed by him before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in application No.5000/2025 which was dismissed by the KSAT vide order dated 29.01.2026. The aforesaid Sri Dr. Umesha.G challenged the said order of the KSAT by approaching this Court in WP.No.2972/2026 which was allowed by the Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court vide Final Order dated 17.03.2026 whereby the Notification/Order dated 05.12.2025 transferring the said Dr. Umesha.G from the post of Joint Registrar Co-operative Society, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore to the place/post of the petitioner as Joint Registrar Co-operative Society (ICDP), Bangalore was set aside and the aforesaid Dr. Umesha.G was directed to be relieved from the said post and report to his original post as Joint Registrar of Co-operative Societies, Bangalore Division, Malleswaram, Bangalore.

4. Subsequently, the respondent No.1 issued communication dated 31.03.2026 directing the petitioner to report to the duty to the place where he was transferred where the third respondent was working at the time of issuance of the aforesaid notification at Annexure dated 05.12.2025. It is the grievance of the petitioner that despite the aforesaid order passed by this Court in WP.No.2972/2026 dated 17.03.2026 at Annexure-F and the communication at Annexure-A, respondents No.1 and 2 are not taking any steps to implement the said orders and as such the petitioner is before this Court by way of the present petition.

5. Per contra, learned AGA submits that if reasonable time is granted, the respondents No. 1 and 2 would take steps to implement and give effect to the aforesaid communication dated 31.03.2026 at Anneuxre-A in accordance with law.

6. Learned

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top