Dismissed¶77

The State of Karnataka v. the Honble Lokayukta

Karnataka HC9 Sept 2025WP/4825/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka Lokayukta Act Section 12(1) versus Section 12(3); Lokayukta's power to pass a positive direction/order versus recommendatory power; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227 against a Lokayukta order; allotment of alternate site (27' x 45', Survey No. 1, Pillaganahali Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk) to legal representative of deceased complainant whose site was taken by the Government; Deputy Commissioner Bengaluru Urban District recommendation; State of Karnataka v. Lokayukta; writ petition (GM-KLA) dismissed; neutral citation NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB.

What did the court decide?

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the Lokayukta's order dated 24-3-2021 stands. ¶77

The State of Karnataka Vs the Honble Lokayukta — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

None; the writ petition was dismissed and the Lokayukta's order dated 24-3-2021 stands.

¶77

Issue for consideration

Whether the Lokayukta has power under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act to pass a positive direction/order (as opposed to merely making a recommendation under Section 12(3)), and if not, whether the impugned order dated 24-3-2021 is beyond the Lokayukta's jurisdiction and power and liable to be set aside. +1 more

¶48

Court's answer

Reading of Section 12(1): where the Lokayukta is satisfied that an action of an authority has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or any other person, the Lokayukta reports in writing and recommends to the competent authority that the injustice or hardship be removed or remedied in the manner and within the time specified in the report.

¶67

Ratio / Principle

The powers under Sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act are separate and distinct.

¶72

Key takeaways

Under Section 12(1) the Lokayukta has the power to make a positive recommendation for remedying the injustice caused to the complainant, whereas under Section 12(3), after enquiry, the Lokayukta makes recommendations for taking/initiating appropriate action against a delinquent Government official.ratio¶72
The Court does not subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Lokayukta does not have power to pass a positive direction; the contention that the Lokayukta can only make a recommendation under Section 12(3) is rejected.ratio¶73

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Division Bench (D K Singh and Venkatesh Naik T, JJ.) of the High Court of Karnataka dismissed the State of Karnataka's writ petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution challenging the Lokayukta's order dated 24-3-2021 in No.COMPT/LOK/BCD-176/2007, passed under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and the State Government to allot a site measuring 27' x 45' feet in Survey No. 1 of Pillaganahali Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, to the legal representative of a deceased complainant whose original site had been taken by the Government on the promise of an alternate site. The Court held that the powers under Sections 12(1) and 12(3) of the Act are separate and distinct: Section 12(1) confers a positive power to recommend remedial measures where an action has caused injustice or undue hardship, while Section 12(3) concerns post-enquiry recommendations for action against delinquent officials. Rejecting the contention that the Lokayukta can only make recommendations under Section 12(3), the Court held that the Lokayukta may pass a positive direction, and found that the impugned order in effect directed the authorities to comply with the Deputy Commissioner's own recommendation regarding allotment. Finding no substance in the petition, the Court dismissed it.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH R AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO.4825 OF 2023 (GM-KLA)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER BENGALURU URBAN DISTRICT (D.C. OFFICE COMPOUND) K.G. ROAD BENGALURU-560 009.

¶10

&PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by MOUNESHWARAPPA NAGARATHNA Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

THE HON'BLE LOKAYUKTA OFFICE OF THE LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI BENGALURU - 560 001.

¶15

A.G. KABALESHWARAN SINCE DEAD BY HIS LR SMT. AMUDHA W/O. LATE A.G. KABALESHWARAN NO.606, 2HC, 2ND BLOCK RESIDENT OF H.R.B.R LAYOUT KALYANANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 084.

¶16

&RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-1; R-2 IS SERVED AND UNREPRESENTED)

¶18

¶19

NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO A) ISSUE A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER PASSED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT ON 24-3-2021 IN NO.COMPT/LOK/BCD-176/2007 PRODUCED AS ANNEXURE-A TO THE WRIT PETITION.

¶22

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

¶23

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶24

and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH)

¶27

Heard Smt. Prathibha R.K., learned Additional

¶28

Government Advocate, and Sri Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for the Karnataka Lokayukta.

¶29

Despite service of notice to respondent No.2, no one has appeared on behalf of respondent No.2.

¶30

The present Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India has been filed impugning

¶31

the order dated 24.03.2021 passed by the Hon9ble Lokayukta on the complaint filed by respondent No.2.

¶32

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34

According to the complaint, the petitioner9s site was taken

¶35

away by the Government on the promise that he would be allotted an alternate site. The report was called for from the Tahsildar. According to the said report, a site was identified as indicated in the status report, but since the prior approval of the Government was not obtained, the site in question could not be allotted to the legal representative of the complainant. The Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, had made a request to the Government to grant approval for allotment of the site to the complainant. Hoping that the authorities concerned would allot the site to the legal representative

¶36

of the complainant, initially, an order in exercise of the power conferred under Section 12(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, was passed.

¶37

The learned counsel representing the Lokayukta concedes that the allotment of the site was promised to the complainant / his legal representatives, and there was a request by the Deputy Commissioner to the Government

¶38

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

to grant approval for allotment of the site in favour of the

¶41

legal representatives of complainant. It is also not disputed that there was no dispute about the legal representatives of the complainant were entitled to allotment of a site in substitution for the site they were earlier allotted.

¶42

In view of the aforesaid fact, and in the interest of justice, the Hon'ble Lokayukta passed an order under Section 12 (1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, directing the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District and the State Government to allot a site measuring 27' x 45'

¶43

feet in Survey No. 1 of Pillaganahali Village, Uttarahalli Hobli, Bengaluru South Taluk, which was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner, Bengaluru Urban District, within a period of seven weeks.

¶44

The learned counsel for the petitioner

¶45

vehemently submits that under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta does not have

¶46

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

the power to pass an order of the nature, which has been passed impugned in the present Writ Petition. She submits that the Lokayukta can only make a recommendation under Section 12 (3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. She, therefore, contends that the impugned order is beyond the jurisdiction and power of the Lokayukta, and hence, liable to be set aside.

¶49

Sri. Venkatesh S. Arabatti, learned counsel for the Karnataka Lokayukta, submits that the Lokayukta exercises the recommendatory power under Section 12 (3). However, under Section 12 (1), a positive direction can be issued. He further submits that the impugned order merely directs the State Government and Deputy Commissioner to follow the recommendation made by the Deputy Commissioner for allotment of the site in favour of the complainant. It is, therefore, an order to comply only with the promise made to the complainant and it is not an order for directing the allotment of the site.

¶50

¶51

NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶52

HC-KAR

¶53

We have considered the submissions. Section

¶54

12 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, on reproduction, reads as under:

¶55

"12. Reports of Lokayukta, etc.

¶56

(1)If, after investigation of any action [x x x ] [Omitted by Act 31 of 1986 w.e.f. 16.6.1986.] involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report.

¶57

(2)The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action taken on the report.

¶58

(3)If, after investigation of any action [XXX] [Omitted by Act 31 of 1986 w.e.f. 16.6.1986.] involving an allegation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such allegation [is substantiated] [Substituted by Act 31 of 1986 w.e.f. 16.6.1986.] either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority.

¶59

(4)The Competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.

¶60

(5)If the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant.

¶61

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶62

HC-KAR

¶63

(6)[ The Lokayukta shall present on or before 31st October of every year, a consolidated report on the performance of his functions and that of the Upalokayukta under this Act to the Governor.] [Substituted by Act, 35 of 2015 w.e.f. 25.08.2015.]

¶64

(7)On receipt of the special report under sub-section (5), or the annual report under subsection (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature.

¶65

(8)The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate."

¶66

From the reading of Section 12 (1), it is evident

¶67

that if the Lokayukta is satisfied that an action of an authority has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta would report in writing and recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship should be removed or remedied in the manner within such time as may be specified in the report.

¶68

Section 12(3) empowers the Lokayukta to make recommendations after an enquiry on a complaint. Power under Section 12(1) is a positive power for remedial measures to be taken by the competent authority to

¶69

8 - NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶70

HC-KAR

¶71

remove the injustice caused to the complainant.

¶72

Therefore, the powers under Sections 12(1) and 12(3) are separate and distinct. Under Section 12(1), the Lokayukta has the power to make positive recommendation for remedying the injustice caused to complainant, whereas under Section 12(3), after enquiry, the Lokayukta has the power to make recommendation for taking/initiating appropriate action against a delinquent Government official etc.

¶73

We, therefore, do not subscribe to the view of the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Lokayukta does not have power to pass a positive direction. Even otherwise, from the reading of the impugned order, it is evident that the Lokayukta has directed the authorities to comply the recommendations of the Deputy Commissioner regarding allotment of the site to the complainant / to his legal representative.

¶74

¶75

NC: 2025:KHC:35449-DB WP No. 4825 of 2023

¶76

HC-KAR

¶77

We, therefore, find no substance in this Writ Petition.

¶78

Hence, it is dismissed .

¶79

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶80