THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA v. SRI SIDDARAJU S.

(BY SRI REUBEN JACOB, AAG A/W SRI B. RAVINDRANATH, AGA FOR R2) …RESPONDENTS THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 04.02.2021 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN A.No-363 AND 496/2019 AS PER ANNEXURE-B. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K.S. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Government Advocate, along with Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing for respondent No.2.

#2. The Karnataka Lokayukta has filed this writ petition challenging the order in Application Nos.363 & 496 of 2019, dated 04.02.2021, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as 'the Tribunal').

#3. Respondent No.1 served as Assistant Engineer, PRE Sub-Division, T. Narasipura Sub-Division, Mysuru District, from July 2010 to June 2014. A complaint dated 08.12.2014 was filed against respondent No.1 alleging substandard work and payment of bogus/fake bills in the names of contractors, thereby causing loss to the Government. The petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter 'the Act') on 10.08.2018, recommending the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- as - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR pecuniary loss. Respondent No. 2 entrusted the enquiry to the petitioner under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (hereinafter 'the CCA Rules') on 27.10.2018. The enquiry officer was appointed on 19.12.2018.

3.1 The order of entrustment and the Articles of Charge dated 19.12.2018 were challenged before the Tribunal. Respondent No. 1 also challenged the order dated 05.12.2018 directing the recovery of a sum of Rs.1,00,000/-. The Tribunal, in the impugned order, held that respondent No.2 had not independently applied its mind to the investigation report submitted by the petitioner-Institution. Accordingly, the matter was remitted to the State, for fresh consideration of the report under Section 12(3) of the Act. The fresh consideration was directed to be completed within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of the order. The petitioner-institution has filed the present petition against the said order of re- consideration.

#4. Sri K.S. Mallikarjun Reddy, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the report under - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR Section 12(3) of the Act was comprehensive and that the decision under Section 12(4) of the Act was rendered after due application of mind and careful consideration of the material on record. He contends that, in remitting the matter for fresh consideration, the Tribunal committed an error.

#5. Sri Reuben Jacob, learned Additional Advocate General, along with Sri B. Ravindranath, learned Additional Government Advocate, appearing respondent No.2, supports the submissions advanced by the learned counsel for the petitioner.

#6. In response to the directions issued by this Court on earlier dates, regarding the non-implementation of the order of the Tribunal, the learned Additional Advocate General submits that, in view of the contemplated filing of the writ petition by the Karnataka Lokayukta, the order of the Tribunal was not given effect to. The learned Additional Advocate General has filed a memo dated 24.09.2025, along with the Government Order dated 22.09.2025.

#7. On consideration of the submissions of the learned counsels for the parties, we notice two aspects in the present - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR writ petition. Firstly, there is the question of delay in filing the writ petition by the petitioner. The impugned order is dated

04.02.2021, whereas the writ petition was filed on 07.06.2024, that is, nearly three and a half years thereafter. The pleadings in the writ petition do not offer any explanation for the delay. Even when queried, the learned counsel for the petitioner was unable to provide any justifiable reason for the delay. While there is no specific limitation prescribed for filing a writ petition, the right to do so must be exercised within a reasonable time. The principle of reasonable time applies equally to an institution such as the petitioner; there can be no different standard in assessing what constitutes reasonable time in such cases.

7.1 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Mrinmoy Maity vs. Chhanda Koley and Others (2024 SCC OnLine Sc 551) has considered the question of delay in approaching High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and at paragraphs 9 to 13, which reads as follows: “9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other - 7 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

#10. The discretion to be exercised would be with care and caution. If the delay which has occasioned in approaching the writ court is explained which would appeal to the conscience of the court, in such circumstances it cannot be gainsaid by the contesting party that for all times to come the delay is not to be condoned. There may be myriad circumstances which gives rise to the invoking of the extraordinary jurisdiction and it all depends on facts and circumstances of each case, same cannot be described in a straight jacket formula with mathematical precision. The ultimate discretion to be exercised by the writ court depends upon the facts that it has to travel or the terrain in which the facts have travelled.

#11. For filing of a writ petition, there is no doubt that no fixed period of limitation is prescribed. However, when the extraordinary jurisdiction of the writ court is invoked, it has to be seen as to whether within a reasonable time same has been invoked and even submitting of memorials would not revive the dead cause of action or resurrect the cause of action which has had a natural death. In such circumstances on the ground of delay and latches alone, the appeal ought to be dismissed or the applicant ought to be non-suited. If it is found that the writ petitioner is guilty of delay and latches, the High Court ought to dismiss the petition on that sole ground itself, in as much as the writ courts are not to indulge in permitting - 8 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR fundamental such indolent litigant to take advantage of his own wrong. It is true that there cannot be any waiver right but while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Article 226, the High Court will have to necessarily take into consideration the delay and latches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. This Court in the case of Tridip Kumar Dingal v. State of W.B., (2009) 1 SCC 768 has held to the following effect: “56. We are unable to uphold the contention. It is no doubt true that there can be no waiver of fundamental right. But while exercising discretionary jurisdiction under Articles 32, 226, 227 or 136 of the Constitution, this Court takes into account certain factors and one of such considerations is delay and laches on the part of the applicant in approaching a writ court. It is well settled that power to issue a writ is discretionary. One of the grounds for refusing reliefs under Article 32 or 226 of the Constitution is that the petitioner is guilty of delay and laches. refusing exercise

#57. If the petitioner wants to invoke jurisdiction of a writ court, he should come to the Court at the earliest reasonably opportunity. possible Inordinate delay in making the motion for a writ will indeed be a good ground discretionary The jurisdiction. underlying object of this principle is not to encourage agitation of stale claims and exhume matters which have already been disposed of or settled or where the rights of third parties have accrued in the meantime (vide State of M.P. v. Bhailal Bhai, [AIR 1964 SC 1006 : (1964) 6 SCR 261], Moon Mills Ltd. v. Industrial Court, [AIR 1967 SC 1450] and Bhoop Singh v. Union of India, [(1992) 3 SCC 136 : (1992) 21 ATC - 9 - NC: 2025:KHC:38729-DB WP No. 15257 of 2024 HC-KAR