SURYAKANTH vs SECRETARY
- Court
- Karnataka High Court
- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
KALABURAGI BENCH
TH
DATED THIS THE 7 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
WRIT PETITION NO. 200507 OF 2026 (S-KAT)
BETWEEN:
SURYAKANTH
S/O RAMACHANDRA KATTIMANI,
AGE:44 YEARS, OCC: PHOTOGRAPHER,
ADDRESS- S. B. COLLEGE ROAD,
BEHIND SARASWATI GUDI,
RAMANAGAR, KALABURAGI-585103,
ADDRESS FOR THE SERVICE OF COUNSEL,
FOR THE APPLICANT,
SHANKAR R. KATTIMANI ADVOCATES,
HOUSE NO. 11-1906/12/2,
LAXMIKANTH NIVAS, S.B. COLLEGE ROAD,
BEHIND GOUTAM BUDDHA SCHOOL,
RAMANAGARA, KALABURAGI-585103.
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. SHANKAR KATTIMANI, ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. SECRETARY,
KARNATAKA PUBLIC SERVICE COMMISSION,
UDYOG SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.
Digitally signed
by B NAGAVENI
Location: HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
2. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,
GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA,
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND
ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS,
VIDHANA SOUDHA,
BANGALORE-560001.
3. NAVINAKUMAR N. (40004794),
MATANGAPURA VILLAGE,
HULADENAHALLI POST,
MALURU TALUK, DIST. KOLAR- 563101.
4. RAKSHITA B. L (40004955),
LAXMIKANT, BAGESAHAPURA VILLAGE,
AND POST GANDASI HOBLI ARASIKERE TALUK,
DIST.HASSAN-573201.
5. PUSHPA C. (40003120),
NO.151/4, VISMAYA NEELAYA,
AKKAMADEVI ROAD, GAVIPURAM WEST,
HANUMANTHA NAGAR,
BANGALORE-560019.
6. LAVANYA K (40007308),
NO.002, WEST SIDE APARTMENT,
VIDHAN SOUDHA LAYOUT CIRCLE,
LAGGERE, BANGALORE- 560058.
7. POOJA (40003766),
TH
NO.35 6 CROSS, PRAGATI LAYOUT,
JAYANTI NAGAR HORAMAVU,
NEAR DON BOSCO SCHOOL,
BANGALORE-560043.
…RESPONDENTS
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
1. THE PETITIONER REQUESTS TO SET ASIDE
THE ORDER MADE BY THE KARNATAKA
STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL
TH
JUDGE DATED 05 JUNE 2025 IN
IA.NO.02/2025 IN O.A.NO.219/2025 AS
ANNEXURE-A,
2. THE PETITIONER REQUESTING THE
HON'BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE
TRIBUNAL IN I.A.NO.02/2025, PLEASE
FILE THE CASE FILE IN O.A.NO.219/2025
IN KANNADA AND ALSO REQUEST TO
ALLOW ME TO SPEAK IN KANNADA.
3. THE PETITIONER REQUESTS TO ISSUE A
WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE
FORM OF A WRIT OF MANDAMUS
DIRECTED TO K.A.T. THE K.A.T. RULES
OF PRACTICE, 1990 IN CHAPTER-3
SCRUTINY IN SECTION 9(3) ALL
PLEADINGS, AFFIDAVITS, MEMORANDA
AND LIST OF DOCUMENTS AND
DOCUMENTS PRESENTED TO OR FILED
IN THE TRIBUNAL SHALL BE FAIRLY AND
LEGIBLY TYPEWRITTEN (IN ENGLISH OR
KANNADA)
4. GRANT ANY OTHER RELIEF THAT THIS
COURT DEEMS FIT.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO
- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)
1. This petition is filed by the petitioner challenging the
order dated 05.06.2025 passed on I.A. No.2 of 2025
in O.A. No.219 of 2025 by the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for short, ‘ the
Tribunal ’).
2. Brief facts leading rise to the filing of this appeal are
as follows:
3. The petitioner filed an application in I.A. No.2 of
2025 in O.A. No.219 of 2025 with a prayer to file the
Application in Kannada language. However, the
Tribunal passed an order on 05.06.2025 rejecting the
application by referring to Rule 3 of the Karnataka
Administrative Tribunal (Procedure) Rules, 1986 (for
short, ‘ the 1986 Rules ’), observing that the
proceedings of the Tribunal can be conducted in
Kannada language with the prior permission of the
Bench, however, every application should be in
- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
English language only and hence, the Tribunal
returned the application to the petitioner to present
in the language, as prescribed under Rule 3 of the
1986 Rules.
4. The petitioner, aggrieved by the same, has filed this
writ petition.
5. Heard the arguments of the learned counsel for the
petitioner and learned Additional Government
Advocate appearing for the respondents-State.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Rule
3 of the 1986 Rules stipulates that the language of
the Tribunal shall be in English, provided that the
parties to the proceedings before the Tribunal may
file documents drawn up in Kannada, if they so desire
and the proviso thereunder further provides that the
Tribunal may in its discretion permit the use of
Kannada in the proceedings, however, the final order
shall be in English. He submits that the Tribunal
- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
committed an error in returning the petition. Hence,
he prays to allow the petition.
7. On the other hand, learned Addl. Government
Advocate appearing for the respondent-State submits
that the pleadings has to be presented in the English
language before the Tribunal, as such, the Tribunal
was justified in passing the impugned order. Hence,
on this ground, prays to dismiss the petition.
8. Perused the records and considered the submissions
of the learned counsel for the parties.
9. It is an undisputed fact that the petitioner submitted
an Application in Kannada language before the
Tribunal challenging the additional selection list on
their office website.
10. In order to consider the case on hand, it is necessary
to examine Rule 3 of the 1986 Rules, which reads as
follows:
- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
“ 3. Language of the Tribunal.- (1) The
language of the Tribunal shall be in
English;
Provided that the parties to a proceeding
before the Tribunal may file documents
drawn up in Kannada, if they so desire;
Provided further that a Bench may, in its
discretion, permit the use of Kannada in
the proceeding, however, the final order
shall be in English.”
11. On perusal, it is clear that Rule 3 provides for
language of the Tribunal and sub-Rule (1) thereof
delineates that the language of the Tribunal shall be
in English, provided that the parties to the
proceedings before the Tribunal may file a document
drawn up in Kannada, if they so desire. Further, the
proviso provides that the Tribunal may, in its
discretion, permit the use of Kannada in the
proceedings, however the final order shall be in
English.
- 8 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
12. From the bare reading of Rule 3 provides that the
applicant may be permitted to use Kannada in the
proceedings but the final order should be in English.
13. The word “ proceedings ” is defined in Concise
English Dictionary and Black’s Law Dictionary as
follows:
(a) “ An event or series of activities with a
set procedure or law action taken in a
court to settle a dispute” ( Concise
Oxford English Dictionary).
(b) “The regular and orderly progression of
a law suit, including all acts and events
between the time of commencement
and the entry of judgment.” ( Black’s
th
Law Dictionary (8 Edition 2004) page
3808);
14. From the perusal of the definition of the word
“proceedings”, it is clear that “ the action taken in a
Court to settle a dispute ” and “ all acts and events
between the time of commencement and the entry of
judgment ” includes the filing of an application before
- 9 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
the Tribunal. Thus, the pleadings in an application
can be filed in Kannada language before the Tribunal
as per Rule 3 of 1986 Rules.
15. Further, in order to consider the case on hand, it is
also necessary to examine clause (iii) of Rule 9 of the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal Rules of Practice,
1990, which reads as follows:
“ 9 (i) x x x
(iii) All pleadings, affidavits, memoranda
and list of documents and documents
presented to, or filed in the Tribunal
shall be fairly and legibly typewritten (in
English or Kannada) on durable paper
of Metric A4 Size (30.5 cms. Long & 21.5
cms. wide), weighing not less than 4.9
Kgs. a ream; in the case of documents
other than pleadings on paper of not less
than 3.0 K.gms., a Ream, and with outer
margin 6.5 cms. wide and inner margin
2.5 cms. wide, in the form of a paper
book as provided under Procedure Rules
of 1986.”
(emphasis supplied)
- 10 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
16. From the perusal of clause (iii) of Rule 9, it
unambiguously stipulates that all the pleadings,
affidavits memoranda and list of documents to be
filed in the Tribunal shall be legible in English or
Kannada.
17. From a bare reading of clause (iii) of Rule 9, it clearly
discloses that the pleadings shall be English or
Kannada. As such, the petitioner has rightly filed the
application in Kannada language in terms of clause
(iii) of Rule 9 of Rules of 1990.
18. In this view of the matter, we are of the considered
view that the Tribunal, while passing the impugned
order, has not taken into consideration Rule 9 of
1990 Rules.
19. The 1990 Rules were enacted with an object of
regulating its own procedure, prescribing such forms
and registers to regulate the proceedings before the
Karnataka Administrative Tribunal for expeditious
- 11 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
disposal of the cases and for smooth and effective
running of day-to-day administration in the Tribunal.
There is no complete embargo on the part of the
litigants to file an application in Kannada. The parties
can file an application in Kannada in terms of Rule
9(iii) of 1990 Rules and the 1986 Rules provides that
the Bench, in its discretion, may permit the use of
Kannada in the proceedings, subject to the condition
that the final order should be in English.
20. As we have already considered the meaning of the
word proceedings and in view of clause (iii) of Rule 9
of 1990 Rules, all pleadings, shall include the
Application. Such a basic aspect was not properly
considered by the Tribunal and committed an error in
passing the impugned order.
21. In view of the above discussion, we proceed to pass
the following:
- 12 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10920-DB
WP No. 200507 of 2026
CNR: KAHC030016412026
ORDER
(i) The writ petition is allowed .
(ii) The impugned order dated
05.06.2025 passed on I.A. No.2 of
2025 in O.A. No.219 of 2025 by
the Karnataka State
Administrative Tribunal,
Kalaburagi is hereby quashed .
I.A. No.2 of 2025 is allowed .
(iii) Application No.219 of 2025 is
hereby restored to its original file.
(iv) The Tribunal is directed to dispose
of the Application, in accordance
with law.
Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE
RK
List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6
Ct: pk