Writ petition by Lokayukta against Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal order quashing entrustment of enquiry. Court dismissed petition finding Tribunal correctly applied alternative remedy provision barring Lokayukta investigation.
Writ petition dismissed as being devoid of merit without interference with the Tribunal order.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 5TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2024
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT
AND
THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA WRIT PETITION NO. 12481 OF 2022 (S-KSAT)
BETWEEN:
…PETITIONERS
(BY SRI. ASHWIN S.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
Digitally signed by BHARATHI S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA
VIJAYANAGAR, BANGALORE 560040
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. SESHU V, HCGP FOR R1)
THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO. 7972/2014 DATED 21/05/2018 (ANNEXURE-B) BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE C.M. POONACHA)
The Karnataka Upalokayukta represented by its Registrar
and the Additional Registrar Enquiries-7, Karnataka Lokayukta, are before this Court assailing the order dated 21.5.2018 passed in Application No.7972/2014 by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru1 , whereunder the application filed by the second respondent before the Tribunal has been allowed and the order of entrustment dated 21.7.2014 (Annexure-A11) and the consequential framing of charges have been set aside.
1 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Tribunal'
2 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1984’
and no notices were issued before passing the mutation in ME No.22/2006-07 on 1.4.2007. It has further noticed that the complainant had challenged the order of mutation before the Special Deputy Commissioner, Bangalore District in Revision Petition No.42/2007-08 in terms of Section 136(3) of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 19643 and the same has been disposed of on 24.3.2009 confirming the mutation entry. Hence, the Tribunal noticed that the complainant having already availed the remedy available under the Act of 1964 and having regard to Section 8(1)(b) of the Act of 1984, allowed the application.
“8. Matters not subject to investigation.
(1)Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action, -
(a)….
(b)if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any tribunal, court, officer or other authority and has not availed of the same.”
(emphasis supplied)
3 Hereinafter referred to as the ‘Act of 1964’
NC: 2024:KHC:36341-DB WP No. 12481 of 2022
Sd/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE
Sd/(C.M. POONACHA) JUDGE
ND
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Tribunal's order dismissing the enquiry under Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.
Whether the existence of an alternate remedy under the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 precludes Lokayukta jurisdiction.
2 provisions across 2 enactments
The Karnataka Upalokayukta Rep by its Registrar
The Additional Registrar Enquiries-7, The Karnataka Lokayukta
The State of Karnataka Represented by its Principal Secretary Department of Revenue
Sri S Shivanna
S.G.Pandit
C.M. Poonacha
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
