1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

DATED THIS THE 15^TH DAY OF MARCH, 2021

PRESENT

THE HON9BLE MR.ABHAY S. OKA, CHIEF JUSTICE

AND

THE HON9BLE MR.JUSTICE SURAJ GOVINDARAJ

WRIT PETITION No.5061 OF 2021 (S-PRO)

BETWEEN:

ERANNA S/O JAKKAPPA

AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS

RESIDING AT POST LINGASUGUR

TQ. LINGASUR

DIST: RAICHUR-584122 ... PETITIONER

(BY SRI. SIDDAVEER CHAKKI, ADVOCATE FOR

SRI. SHRIDHAR PRABHU, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. STATE OF KARNATAKA

ROOM NO.320, 3^RD FLOOR

VIDHANA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560001

REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY

2. ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT

ROOM NO.436, VIKASA SOUDHA

BENGALURU-560001 ... RESPONDENTS

(BY SRI. VIJAYAKUMAR A. PATIL, AGA)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 227 OF

THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A

MANDAMUS OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION

OF THE LIKE NATURE TO THE RESPONDENTS TO CONSIDER

THE

REPRESENTATION

DATED

06.01.2021

MADE

BY

2

PETITIONER

PRODUCED

AS

ANNEXURE-E

AND

TAKE

APPROPRIATE ACTION IN ACCORDANCE WITH LAW AND

ETC.

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR ORDERS THIS

DAY, CHIEF JUSTICE MADE THE FOLLOWING:

ORDER

Heard the learned counsel appearing for the

petitioner. The learned counsel submits that he has paid

the Court fee.

2. The substantive challenge in this petition is to the

grant of promotional transfers to community officers under

the orders at Annexures-B to E. Thus, in substance

challenge is to the grant of promotion to various officers

under the orders at Annexures-B to E.

3. The perusal of the grounds taken in the petition

show that the challenge is on the ground that if the said

Officers are promoted, it will seriously impair the

implementation of poverty alleviation schemes and other

measures.

4. The law on this aspect is very clear. The Apex

Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal -v- Sahodar Prasad

3

mahto and Others¹ has held that except for a PIL seeking

a writ of quo warranto, a PIL is not maintainable in service

matters.

5. The challenge in this petition is to the promotion

granted to some of the Officers under the orders at

Annexures-B to E, who are not even made parties to the

petition, apart from the fact that there is no prayer for

issuing writ of quo warranto. In view of the law laid down

by the Apex Court in the case of Hari Bansh Lal (supra),

we decline to entertain this petition as a Public Interest

Litigation.

6. Only on the above ground, the petition is rejected.

Sd/-

CHIEF JUSTICE

Sd/-

JUDGE

ln

1 (2010) 9 SCC 655