##PAGE1##

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 2^ND DAY OF NOVEMBER 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN WRIT APPEAL NO. 2030 OF 2026 (KLR-RES)

BETWEEN:

GURURAJ GANTIHOLE AGED ABOUT 42 YEARS R/AT PREMASHRAYA, GANTIHOLE BYNDOOR TALUK, BIJOOR POST UDUPI DISTRICT - 576 232.

…APPELLANT (BY SRI. ARUNA SHYAM M, SENIOR COUNSEL FOR SMT. SHIVANI SHETTY, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY THE SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT REVENUE DEPARTMENT VIDHANA SOUDHA, AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, Digitally BENGALURU 560 001.

signed by MALA K N Location: 2. DISTRICT COMMISSIONER, HIGH DEPUTY COMMISSIONER OFFICE, COURT OF RAJATADRI, MANIPAL, KARNATAKA UDUPI DISTRICT – 576 104.

3. TAHSILDAR, TAHSILDAR OFFICE, KUNDAPUR TALUK, KUNDAPUR 576 201.

4. K. GOPAL POOJARY, S/O MANJU POOJARY, 'SHANTHI NILAYA', KANYANA, KANYANA POST, KUNDAPUR TALUK - 576 232.

5. SRINIVAS, S/O KRISHNAMURTHY, SHANKARANARAYANA, KUNDAPUR TALUK - 576 232.

6. DINESH HALLIHOLE, S/O RAMAKRISHNA NAYAK, HALLIHOLE POST, BYNDOOR TALUK - 576 232.

7. HEMALATHA POOJARY, W/O RAJU POOJARY, HALLIHOLE POST, BYNDOOR TALUK - 576 232.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. I THARANATH POOJARY, AAG FOR SRI. S H RAGHAVENDRA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3;

SRI. P D SURANA, ADVOCATE FOR R4 & R5;

R6 SERVED)

THIS WRIT APPEAL FILED UNDER SECTION 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT, 1961 PRAYING TO i. CALL FOR RECORDS AND ii. SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 04.08.2026 PASSED IN WP No. 4097/2024 AND CONSEQUENTLY ALLOW THE RELIEFS PRAYED FOR IN WP No. 4097/2024 AND iii. PASS SUCH OTHER ORDERS IN THIS HONBLE COURT DEEMS FIT AND PROPER IN THE FACTS AND CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

THIS APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.10.2026 AND COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN

CAV JUDGMENT

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.SHANTHI BHUSHAN)

A personal request, political influence or the desire to rehabilitate a leader who has lost political ground cannot, by itself, furnish a justification for creating an additional position or arrangement. The circumstances suggest an attempt to secure a position of authority through an indirect route and to regain power through a back-door route, rather than to address any genuine public necessity. The creation of an additional position or arrangement cannot be justified merely to facilitate the political rehabilitation of a person who has lost ground or to provide an indirect avenue for the restoration of lost influence. The desire of an individual to cling on to power cannot be permitted to dictate the course of public administration. Power is entrusted to public authorities to serve the people, not to provide a refuge for those who have lost their political standing. Public office cannot be treated as a consolation prize for a defeated politician, nor can it be converted into a reward for political loyalty. Public office is a responsibility entrusted in the public interest, not a privilege to be retained at any cost or regained through political manoeuvring. To permit otherwise would be to reduce public administration to an instrument of personal ambition, undermining the very purpose for which governmental authority is entrusted to those who exercise it. The State Government must, therefore, remain above considerations of personal political advancement and ensure that its decisions are guided by public interest and genuine administrative necessity, rather than by an attempt to accommodate an individual’s desire to regain lost authority.

The present intra-court appeal is directed against the common order dated 04.08.2026 passed by the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition No.4097/2024 (KLR-RES). By the said order, the writ petition challenging the constitution of the Additional Committee under Section 94-A(2-A) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Ac