Dismissed¶30

The Addl Registrar of ENQUIRIES-13 v. Sri N Y Srinivasamurthy

Karnataka HC1 Apr 2025WP/9378/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka HC Division Bench dismisses Lokayukta's writ petition (WP No. 9378 of 2023, S-KSAT, decided 01-04-2025) against KSAT order dated 10.02.2022 in Application No. 2737/2021 quashing enquiry proceedings; grounds: alternate remedy under section 8(1)(b) Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984; pending injunctive suit O.S.No.112/2011 re wall built on public property, temporary injunction granted and later vacated; no fault attributable to employee; certiorari under Articles 226 and 227; coram Krishna S Dixit and Ramachandra D. Huddar JJ.; no costs.

What did the court decide?

The Tribunal acted correctly because the aggrieved party, i.e., the complainant, had an alternate remedy available under section 8(1)(b) of the 1984 Act (Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984). ¶29

The Addl Registrar of ENQUIRIES-13 Vs Sri N Y… — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2025)

¶1

NC: 2025:KHC:13553-DB WP No. 9378 of 2023

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 1^ST DAY OF APRIL, 2025

¶4

PRESENT

¶5

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT

¶6

AND

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR WRIT PETITION NO. 9378 OF 2023 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

THE ADDL. REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-13 THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶10

…PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI. K PRASANNA SHETTY.,ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

Digitally signed by CHETAN B C Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

SRI. N Y SRINIVASAMURTHY, S/O YELLAPPA, AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, WORKING AS PANCHAYATH DEVELOPMENT OFFICER H GANGAVARA CHOWDAPPANAHALLY GRAMA PANCHAYATH, DEVANAHALLI TALUK, BENGALURU RURA DIST. R/AT NELALUR, ATTIBELE HOBLI, ANEKAL TALUK – 560 038, BENGALURU URBAN DIST.

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT & PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT(ZP) M S BUILDING, DR AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶16

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.B RAVINDRANATH., AGA FOR R2)

¶17

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO CALL

¶18

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:13553-DB WP No. 9378 of 2023

¶19

FOR THE RECORDS IN APPLICATION NO. 2737/2021 ON THE FILE OF THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BANGALORE AND BE PLEASED TO A) ISSUE AN ORDER OR DIRECTION OR A WRIT IN THE NATURE OF CERTIORARI QUASHING/SET-ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.02.2022 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO. 2737/2021 PASSED BY THE HON’BLE KARNATAKA ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-C) AND B) PASS SUCH OTHER ORDER OR DIRECTION DEEMED JUST AND EXPEDIENT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE INCLUDING THE COSTS.

¶20

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

¶21

CORAM: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT AND HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAMACHANDRA D. HUDDAR

¶22

ORAL ORDER

¶23

(PER: HON'BLE MR JUSTICE KRISHNA S DIXIT)

¶24

Petitioner, Additional Registrar of Enquiries-13, Karnataka Lokayukta, is knocking at the doors of Writ court for assailing the Tribunal’s order dated 10.2.2022 whereby private respondent’s Application Nol.2737/2021 having been favoured, the subject enquiry proceedings have been quashed inter alia on the ground that there is availability of alternate remedy under Section 8(1)(b) of

¶25

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:13553-DB WP No. 9378 of 2023

¶26

the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. Learned AGA on

¶27

request, accepts notice for respondent No.2.

¶28

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties

¶29

and having perused the Petition Papers, we decline indulgence in the matter inasmuch as the Tribunal has done the right thing on two counts: viz the aggrieved party i.e., complainant had alternate remedy availing under section 8(1)(b) of 1984 Act; secondly, in respect of complaint itself, injunctive suit in O.S.No.112/2011 is pending wherein, an order of temporary injunction was granted, although the same is said to have been vacated at a later point of time. When a suit is pending in respect of subject matter of the complaint which involved allegedly a wall built on public property, ordinarily, the officials keep their hands off at times rightly. Therefore, no fault can be attributed to the employee concerned. This reasoning has animated impugned order of the Tribunal.

¶30

In the above circumstances, this petition is dismissed, costs having been made easy.

¶31

¶32

NC: 2025:KHC:13553-DB WP No. 9378 of 2023

¶33

Registry to send a copy of this order to the private

¶34

respondent by Speed Post, immediately.

¶35

Sd/(KRISHNA S DIXIT) JUDGE

¶36