THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court Karnataka

#1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

#2. SRI SHASHIKUMAR T.M., S/O T.S.MADALAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR DIVISION ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002. (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1) …RESPONDENTS - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 16TH JULY 2019 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 1932/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE A. THIS PETITION, 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 by its Registrar, Application No.1932/2017 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated

16.07.2019. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order impugned dated 22.02.2017 passed by the first respondent-Government (Annexure-A8), so far as it relates to the applicant. - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR

#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 initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in Urban Development Department, thereafter promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, his services were placed at the disposal of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short). He was posted to Kengeri Sub-Division, Bengaluru as Assistant Executive Engineer and reported to duty at Kengeri Sub-Division of BBMP on 28.12.2013. Subsequently, by an order dated

20.09.2016, he was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Division-Road Infrastructure, BBMP, Bengaluru. One Sri. Giriyappa filed a complaint before Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the owner of the building in Site No.2608/48/1, has constructed the building by violating the Building Bye-laws of BBMP and there is total - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR inaction on the part of the Engineers who were working in the Sub-division, in taking any action against the illegal construction of the building. On the complaint, the Technical Wing attached to Karnataka Lokayukta conducted an investigation on the allegations and submitted a report stating that there is inaction on the part of the applicant and others.

#4. The Karnataka Lokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government along with investigation report. Based on the report forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta, the first respondent-Government has entrusted the inquiry with the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short) against the applicant. Aggrieved by the entrustment order, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.1932/2017.

#5. The main contention of the applicant before the Tribunal was that the applicant subsequent to reporting to - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR duty, invoking the provisions under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('KMC Act' for short), has taken action, which is evident from the documents produced before the Tribunal. As such there is no dereliction of duty as alleged against the applicant and sought to allow the application by setting aside the order of entrustment.

#6. On notice, both the State Government and Karnataka Lokayukta appeared and filed their statement of objections supporting the order of entrustment. It is the specific case of the Karnataka Lokayukta that there is dereliction of duty on the part of the applicant as he has not taken any steps in pursuance of order passed by the City Civil Court on 27.11.2014 and accordingly both the State Government as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta sought to dismiss the application.

#7. The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed on record and the rival submission at the Bar came to a conclusion that the allegation of total dereliction of duty against the applicant cannot be accepted as he has taken all - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR the actions available under the KMC Act, 1976. The Tribunal further observed that when there is alternative and efficacious remedy available under the KMC Act, 1976, the Lokayukta ought to have advised the complainant to take recourse to the said remedies instead of proceeding with the matter by entertaining the complaint. Having held so, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order impugned by its order dated 16.07.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this petition belatedly by four years.

#8. Heard Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate first respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

#9. On a query regarding the explanation for delay caused in filing the petition belatedly by four years, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. The only explanation offered at paragraph No.28 - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR of the petition is that though the papers were entrusted on

17.12.2020 to the earlier counsel to prefer the petition, however, despite instructions the counsel has not taken any action and thereafter the papers were withdrawn and placed in the hands of the present counsel to prefer the petition. This explanation cannot be considered as plausible under law. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. 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 entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the enormous delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023 HC-KAR 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 of four years is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1