Dismissed¶58

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC11 Nov 2025WP/9363/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Delay and laches; writ petition under Article 226 rejected for unexplained four-year delay; Karnataka Lokayukta's challenge to KSAT order (dt. 16.07.2019, Appln. 1932/2017) setting aside Rule 14-A CCA Rules 1957 entrustment (order dt. 22.02.2017) fails on delay alone; finality not reopenable; Lokayukta not excepted from delay/laches doctrine; KMC Act 1976 remedies noted; Section 12(3) Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 report; per T.M.Nadaf J.

What did the court decide?

The sole explanation for the delay — that papers were entrusted on 17.12.2020 to an earlier counsel who took no action despite instructions — cannot be considered plausible under law; consequently the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. ¶52

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

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶58

Issue for consideration

Whether the writ petition, filed belatedly by about four years against the Tribunal's order dated 16.07.2019, should be entertained despite the delay and laches, i.e., whether the delay should be condoned on the explanation offered. +1 more

¶49

Court's answer

¶52

Ratio / Principle

The petitioner is not an exception to the position of a citizen/party or litigant where there is delay and laches in approaching the Court.

¶53

Key takeaways

Delay brings hazard and causes injury to the lis; on scrutiny of the case papers there was no reason to condone the enormous delay, as ignoring obvious and enormous delay would foster injustice affecting others.ratio¶53
A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened upon unreasonable lapse of time; the unexplained delay of four years is fatal to the case, and on this count alone the writ petition is liable to be rejected.ratio¶57
The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly; a writ court exercising the extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 must weigh the explanation offered and its acceptability.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Karnataka High Court (Division Bench: B M Shyam Prasad & T.M.Nadaf JJ.; order per T.M.Nadaf J), WP No. 9363 of 2023 (S-KSAT), decided 11.11.2025 — The Karnataka Lokayukta, through its Registrar, sought certiorari under Article 226 to quash the KSAT Bengaluru order dated 16.07.2019 in Application No.1932/2017, by which the Tribunal had set aside the State Government's entrustment order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure-A8) directing a Rule 14-A CCA Rules, 1957 inquiry against an Assistant Executive Engineer (BBMP) — an entrustment made on a report forwarded under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 alleging inaction against unauthorised construction; the Tribunal had found that the applicant had taken the actions available under the KMC Act, 1976. Filed belatedly by about four years, with the only explanation being that the papers lay with an earlier counsel since 17.12.2020 without action, the explanation was held implausible and the petition hit by delay and laches; the petitioner (Lokayukta) was held to stand on no different footing from an ordinary litigant, the unexplained four-year delay was held fatal, and finality attained was held not reopenable upon unreasonable lapse of time. On this count alone the writ petition was rejected, leaving the Tribunal's order undisturbed; the substantive merits were never adjudicated.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11^TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9363 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S BUILDING DR B R AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE-560 001 REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶13

AND:

¶14

Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE-560 001.

¶16

SRI SHASHIKUMAR T.M., S/O T.S.MADALAH AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR DIVISION ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HEAD OFFICE, N R SQUARE BENGALURU-560 002.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1)

¶19

¶20

NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION 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 16TH JULY 2019 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 1932/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE A.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, 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

¶24

ORAL ORDER

¶25

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

¶26

The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar, in Application No.1932/2017 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the order dated 16.07.2019. The Tribunal allowed the application and set aside the order impugned dated 22.02.2017 passed by the first respondent-Government ( Annexure-A8 ), so far as it relates to the applicant.

¶27

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

The parties are referred to as per their rankings

¶30

before the Tribunal.

¶31

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

¶32

The applicant was initially appointed as Assistant Engineer in Urban Development Department, thereafter promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer. Thereafter, his services were placed at the disposal of the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike ('BBMP' for short). He was posted to Kengeri Sub-Division, Bengaluru as Assistant Executive Engineer and reported to duty at Kengeri Sub-Division of BBMP on 28.12.2013. Subsequently, by an order dated 20.09.2016, he was posted as Assistant Executive Engineer at Rajarajeshwari Nagar Division-Road Infrastructure, BBMP, Bengaluru.

¶33

One Sri.Giriyappa filed a complaint before the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the owner of the building in Site No.2608/48/1, has constructed the building by violating the Building Bye-laws of BBMP and there is total

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

inaction on the part of the Engineers who were working in the Sub-division, in taking any action against the illegal construction of the building.

¶37

On the complaint, the Technical Wing attached to Karnataka Lokayukta conducted an investigation on the allegations and submitted a report stating that there is inaction on the part of the applicant and others.

¶38

The Karnataka Lokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government along with investigation report. Based on the report forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta, the first respondent-Government has entrusted the inquiry with the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short) against the applicant. Aggrieved by the entrustment order, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.1932/2017.

¶39

The main contention of the applicant before the Tribunal was that the applicant subsequent to reporting to

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

duty, invoking the provisions under the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 ('KMC Act' for short), has taken action, which is evident from the documents produced before the Tribunal. As such there is no dereliction of duty as alleged against the applicant and sought to allow the application by setting aside the order of entrustment.

¶43

On notice, both the State Government and Karnataka Lokayukta appeared and filed their statement of objections supporting the order of entrustment. It is the specific case of the Karnataka Lokayukta that there is dereliction of duty on the part of the applicant as he has not taken any steps in pursuance of order passed by the City Civil Court on 27.11.2014 and accordingly both the State Government as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta sought to dismiss the application.

¶44

The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed on record and the rival submission at the Bar came to a conclusion that the allegation of total dereliction of duty against the applicant cannot be accepted as he has taken all

¶45

6 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶46

HC-KAR

¶47

the actions available under the KMC Act, 1976. The Tribunal further observed that when there is alternative and efficacious remedy available under the KMC Act, 1976, the Lokayukta ought to have advised the complainant to take recourse to the said remedies instead of proceeding with the matter by entertaining the complaint. Having held so, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order impugned by its order dated 16.07.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this petition belatedly by four years.

¶48

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶49

On a query regarding the explanation for delay caused in filing the petition belatedly by four years, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. The only explanation offered at paragraph No.28

¶50

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶51

HC-KAR

¶52

of the petition is that though the papers were entrusted on 17.12.2020 to the earlier counsel to prefer the petition, however, despite instructions the counsel has not taken any action and thereafter the papers were withdrawn and placed in the hands of the present counsel to prefer the petition. This explanation cannot be considered as plausible under law. 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.

¶53

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

¶54

¶55

NC: 2025:KHC:46452-DB WP No. 9363 of 2023

¶56

HC-KAR

¶57

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 is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be

¶58

rejected and is accordingly rejected .

¶59

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶60

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶61

¶62

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1

Procedural history

How this case reached the court

AI extract

Order under challenge
Order dated 16.07.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru, in Application No.1932/2017, allowing the applicant's challenge and setting aside the first respondent-Government's entrustment order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure-A8) so far as it related to the applicant; this Tribunal order was called in question in the present writ petition.¶22
Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal (KSAT), Bengaluru · 16.07.2019
Prior proceeding
The applicant (respondent No.2) was appointed Assistant Engineer in the Urban Development Department, promoted as Assistant Executive Engineer, whose services were placed at the disposal of BBMP; he reported at Kengeri Sub-Division on 28.12.2013 and was posted by order dated 20.09.2016 as Assistant Executive Engineer, Rajarajeshwari Nagar Division-Road Infrastructure, BBMP.¶32
Prior proceeding
One Sri.Giriyappa complained to the Karnataka Lokayukta that the owner of the building in Site No.2608/48/1 constructed it in violation of the Building Bye-laws of BBMP and that the sub-division engineers were inactive.¶33
Prior proceeding
The Technical Wing of the Karnataka Lokayukta investigated and reported inaction on the part of the applicant and others.¶37
Prior proceeding
On the Lokayukta's report forwarded under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, the first respondent-Government entrusted the inquiry to the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the CCA Rules, 1957, by order dated 22.02.2017 (Annexure-A8).¶38
Prior proceeding
Aggrieved by the entrustment order, the applicant approached the Tribunal in Application No.1932/2017, contending that, invoking the KMC Act, 1976, he had taken action and there was no dereliction of duty; the Lokayukta countered that he took no steps pursuant to the City Civil Court order dated 27.11.2014.¶38
Prior proceeding
The Karnataka Lokayukta's stated basis for alleging dereliction was non-action in pursuance of the City Civil Court order dated 27.11.2014.¶43

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

The Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sri Chethan Naik B T Vs Smt Roja T N

Smt Jyothi v S Vs Manager

Sri Girish K C Vs the State of Karnataka

The State of Karnataka Vs Sri Nagaraj B

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs State of Karnataka

Sri. Srinivas. T. R. Vs the State of Karnataka