THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND:

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, KARNATAKA PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001.

#2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

#3. SRI. M.G. NAGARAJ, S/O V. GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RESIDING AT NO. 256, 3RD MAIN, 8TH CROSS, K.C. LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570 011. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09TH JULY 2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION No.7216/2017 (ANNEXURE-A). IN WP NO. 12348/2022 BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. (BY SRI. ASHWIN S HALADY, ADVOCATE) ...PETITIONER - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR AND:

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001.

#3. SRI. M.G. NAGARAJ, S/O V GANGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, No. 256, 3RD MAIN 8TH CROSS, K.C. LAYOUT, MYSORE - 570 011. ...RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2; SRI. B.S. GAUTHAM, ADVOCATE FOR R3; SRI. D. HANUMANTHARAYA, ADVOCATE FOR R3) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 7216/2017 DATED 09.07.2019 (ANNEXURE-B) BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR THESE PETITIONS ARE COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta - third respondent in Application No.7126/2017 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) is before us under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, in these two different writ petitions by two different panel advocates challenging the very same impugned order dated 09.07.2019, one in the year 2022 and another in the year 2025. The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra, allowed the application and set aside the order of entrustment dated 23.01.2015, passed by second respondent and the articles of - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR charge dated 09.02.2015 (Annexure A15) issued by third respondent.

#2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal.

#3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under: The applicant was before the Tribunal Application No.7216/2017, calling in question the order of entrustment dated 23.01.2015 and issuance of articles of charge dated 09.02.2015 by the Karnataka Lokayukta on the premise that, the Lokayukta has forwarded the report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984'), without resorting to the provisions under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1984, which contemplates that the complaint has to avail the alternative and efficacious remedy available under - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR the Act, under which he has made a grievance before the applicant.

#4. The respondent-State as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta appeared and opposed the application.

#5. The Tribunal after considering the rival submission as well as the materials placed on record, formed an opinion that in view of efficacious and alternative remedy available to the complainant, as contemplated in the provisions contained in the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, there is flaw in sending report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984, to the Government and the Government acting on the said report under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, entrusting the enquiry are unsustainable in law. Having held so, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order of entrustment and the articles of charge issued, impugned in the application, by its order dated 09.07.2019. It is this - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR order passed by the Tribunal that is called in question by respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta in these two different petitions, one in the year 2022 and another in the year 2025 by different panel advocates belatedly in one petition by two years and in another that is WP.No.3388/2025 belatedly by five years seven months.

#6. There is no explanation by the learned counsel for the petitioner as to why two petitions are filed calling in question the very same order. However, both the petitions are belated, one by two years and another by five years and eleven months.

#7. Heard Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V. Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for first and second respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers. - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR

#8. When queried regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly, one by two years and another by five years and eleven months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too.

#9. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction.

#10. The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis as the delay defeats all the rights. On scrutiny of the - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:53193-DB WP No. 3388 of 2025 C/W WP No. 12348 of 2022 HC-KAR entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the enormous delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice, as it is likely to affect others. A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay in approaching this Court in two petitions, one by two years and another by five years and eleven months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petitions are liable to be rejected and are accordingly rejected. In view of disposal of Writ Petitions, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE PK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 5 ct-vn