The Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

SRI JAYARAM G., AGED ABOUT 47 YEARS, S/O GOPAL NAIK.T, WORKING AS REVENUE INSPECTOR, GOVINAKORI, TALUK OFFICE, HONNALI, DAVANAGERE DISTRICT, R/AT MATHRU SHREE NILAYA, 6^TH CROSS, B.H. ROAD, NEAR KADA OFFICE MALARAGOPPA, SHIVAMOGGA, SHIVAMOGGA DISTRICT-577 222.

¶23

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 TO R3)

¶24

THIS WP 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 31/08/2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.6615/2018.

¶25

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

¶29

The Karnataka Lokayukta - respondent No.4 in Application No.6615/2018 is in petition under Article 226 of

¶30

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:47028-DB WP No. 17202 of 2025

¶31

HC-KAR

¶32

the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 31.08.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application and set-aside the order of entrustment dated 21.03.2018 and issuance of articles of charge against the applicant with liberty to the first respondent to proceed independently, if any violation of conduct rules on the part of the applicant is involved.

¶33

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

¶34

A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:-

¶35

The applicant called in question the order of entrustment passed by the Government under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules' for short) and issuance of articles of charge in furtherance thereof by the Karnataka Lokayukta, on the ground that the Government has not applied its mind as contemplated under Section 12(4) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. The allegations against the applicant in the investigation conducted by Upa-lokayukta is

¶36

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:47028-DB WP No. 17202 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

with respect to non-seeking of permission to purchase the properties which amounts to violation of Conduct Rules.

¶39

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

¶40

The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed before it and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties, was of the opinion that the entrustment order is not sustainable in law for nonapplication of mind and accordingly proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of entrustment and articles of charge issued against the applicant reserving the liberty to the Government to proceed independently, if there is any violation of conduct rules on the part of the applicant is involved by its order dated 31.08.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years nine months.

¶41

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 to 3. Perused the entire writ papers.

¶42

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:47028-DB WP No. 17202 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

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

¶45

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 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 nine

¶46