SIDDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
Court: High Court of Karnataka
Bench: S.R.KRISHNA KUMAR
Judgment date:
Case summary
High Court of Karnataka judgment dated 2026-04-28. SIDDARAJU v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA. Read the judgment and case details on LawSphereX.
Judgment text
- 1 - WP No. 13812 of 2026 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU TH DATED THIS THE 28 DAY OF APRIL, 2026 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO. 13812 OF 2026 (S-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SIDDARAJU S/O ANDANAYA AGED ABOUT 55YEARS, R/AT HOSAVARANCHI, HUNDIMALA POST, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE-571189. 2. PRAKASH S/O LATE MAHADEVAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, Digitally signed by R/AT HOSAVARANCHI, SHARADAVANI B HUNSUR TALUK, Location: High Court of MYSORE-571189. Karnataka 3. KANTHARAJU S/O LATE GADI BORAIAH, AGED ABOUT 57 YEARS, R/AT HUNDIMALA POST, BIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, RATHNAPURI COLONY, MYSORE-571189. 4. MAHADEVA S/O LATE CHIKKEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, R/AT HOSAVARANCHI, HUNDIMALA POST, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE-571189. - 2 - WP No. 13812 of 2026 5. CHIKKANAYAKA, S/O BHIMA NAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, KARIMUDDANAHALLI POST, BILIKERE HOBLI, HUNSUR TALUK, KENDAGANNA PURA, MYSORE-571189. 6. SHIVANANJA NAYAKA S/O SHIVANAJA NAYAKA.
AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, R/AT KASABA HOBLI, HD KOTE TALUK. MYSORE-571114. 7. DASANAYAKA S/O DASANAYAKA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, R/AT KARIMUDDANAHALLI POST, BILIKERE HOBLI, KENDAGANNAPURA MYSORE-571189. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. SHARATH S GOWDA. , ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF HORTICULTURE, M. S BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE HORTICULTURE DEPARTMENT, LALBAGH, BASAVANAGUDI, BANGALORE-560004. - 3 - WP No. 13812 of 2026 3. JOINT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE, MYSORE DIVISION (ZILLA PANCHAYAT), NEAR CURZON PARK, PALACE NORTH GATE, MYSORE-570001. 4. THE DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE MYSORE DISTRICT (ZILLA PANCHAYAT), NEAR CURZON PARK, PALACE NORTH GATE, MYSORE-570001. 5. THE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, REP. BY ITS CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER, ZP OFFICE, CHAMRAJAPURAM MOHALLA MYSORE-570005. 6. THE SENIOR ASSISTANT DIRECTOR OF HORTICULTURE ZILLA PANCHAYAT, HUNSUR TALUK, MYSORE-571105.
…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. SPOORTHY HEDGE. AGA FOR R1 AND R2 SRI PAWAN KUMAR M. N. , ADVOCATE FOR R3, 4, 5 AND 6) THIS WP IS FILED PRAYING TO DIRECTING THE RESPONDENT AUTHORITIES TO REGULARIZE THE SERVICE OF PETITIONERS IN TERMS OF LAW LAID DOWN BY THE APEX COURT IN CASE OF JAGGO V/S UNION OF INDIA REPORTED IN 2024 SCC ONLINE SC 3826, SHRIPAL V. NAGAR NIGAM, GHAZIABAD REPORTED IN 2025 SCC ONLINE SC 221, DHARAM SINGH AND ORS V/S STATE OF UP AND ANR IN CIVIL APPEAL NO. 8558/2018 DATED 19/08/2025. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR - 4 - WP No. 13812 of 2026 ORAL ORDER 1.
In this petition, the petitioners have sought for the following reliefs: "A) Issue writ in the nature of mandamus or any other appropriate writ directing the Respondent Authorities to regularize the service of petitioners in terms of law laid down by the Apex Court in case of Jaggo V/s Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, Shripal V. Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221, Dharam Singh and Ors V/s State of UP and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018 dated 19. 08. 2025. B) Grant such other relief that this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the matter". 2. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and learned AGA for respondents No. 1 and 2 and learned counsel for respondents No. 3, 4, 5 and 6 and perused the material on record. 3. It is the grievance of the petitioners that their representations dated 07. 04. 2026, 06. 04. 2026 and 06. 04.
2026 at Annexures-M, M1 and M2 respectively submitted to the respondents have not been considered so far by respondents nor any order has been passed on the same. Under these - 5 - WP No. 13812 of 2026 circumstances, the petitioners are before this Court by way of present petition. 4. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondents submits that if reasonable time is given, the respondents would consider and pass necessary order on the said representation. 5. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and rival submissions, the respondents are hereby directed to address the grievances of the petitioners and consider their representations dated 07. 04. 2026, 06. 04. 2026 and 06. 04. 2026 at Annexures-M, M1 and M2 respectively and the order passed by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of Jaggo Vs. Union of India reported in 2024 SCC Online SC 3826, Shripal V Nagar Nigam, Ghaziabad reported in 2025 SCC Online SC 221 and Dharam Singh and Ors Vs.
State of UP and Anr in Civil Appeal No. 8558/2018 dated 19. 08. 2025 and the order passed by the this Court in the case of Smt Shanthalakshmi Vs. State of Karnataka in WP. No. 40204/2012 C/W WP. No. 54553/2013 at Annexure-L, in accordance with law, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. - 6 - WP No. 13812 of 2026 6. Subject to the aforesaid observations and directions, the petition stands disposed of. Sd/- (S. R. KRISHNA KUMAR) JUDGE RJ List No. : 1 Sl No. : 17
Source: High Court of Karnataka. Dataset: Dattam Labs. CC BY 4.0. Text extracted automatically; compare with the source PDF for layout and accuracy.