(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) v. SRI.KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) …PETITIONER AND:

THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TO GOVERNMENT OF KARNATAKA, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001.

SRI. M.R. NAGARAJU, S/O LATE RAMANNA, AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS, WORKS AS TAHSILDAR GRADE-1, AT BHADRAVATHI, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - NC: 2025:KHC:48033-DB WP No. 17538 of 2025 HC-KAR R/A. BHADRAVATHI, SHIVAMOGGA DIST - 577 301. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 18 DECEMBER 2020, IN APPLICATION No. (ANNEXURE-A) AS ISSUED BY THE KSAT. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta - respondent No.2 Application No.5974/2017 is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 18.12.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed - 3 - NC: 2025:KHC:48033-DB WP No. 17538 of 2025 HC-KAR the application and set-aside the order of entrustment dated

17.02.2017 passed by respondent No.1 (Annexure-A9).

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

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- The applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.5974/2017 calling in question the order of entrustment on the premise that the Lokayukta instead of directing the complainant to resort the alternative, efficacious remedy provided under Sections 8 and 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984), proceeded to forward a report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 which has culminated in entrustment order by the Government as such the same is unsustainable in law and a flaw of jurisdiction. To buttress his arguments, he relied on the Judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in N.KUMAR AND U.SREENIVASE GOWDA VS. SRI.KUMARASWAMY MINERAL EXPORTS PRIVATE LIMITED, BANGALORE reported in 2015 (6) KLJ 381. - 4 - NC: 2025:KHC:48033-DB WP No. 17538 of 2025 HC-KAR

The respondent State as well as Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application.

The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed before it and the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties and placing reliance on the judgment in N.KUMAR supra was of the opinion that there is an alternative, efficacious remedy available to the complainant under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1984, in these circumstances the power exercised by the Karnataka Lokayukta in forwarding the report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 is unsustainable. The Tribunal following the judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in NANJEGOWDA VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA (LOKAYUKTA) held that the action contemplated both under Sections 12(3) as well as Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 are unsustainable in law and proceeded to set-aside the order of entrustment dated 17.02.2017 (Annexure-A9), by its order dated

18.12.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years six months. - 5 - NC: 2025:KHC:48033-DB WP No. 17538 of 2025 HC-KAR

Heard Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ papers.

On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years six 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. 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, exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction.

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 - 6 - NC: 2025:KHC:48033-DB WP No. 17538 of 2025 HC-KAR 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 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 six months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected.

In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List.:2 Sl.No.:5 ct-vn