Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the State of Karnataka

MR. M. MALLIKARJUNA S/O MALLESHA AGED ABOUT 23 YEARS, WORKING AS VILLAGE ACCOUNTANT KASABA HOBLI ALUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT R/AT MACHENAHALLI, GHATTADAHALLI POST, HALEBEEDU HOBLI, BELUR TALUK, HASSAN DISTRICT.

¶17

…RESPONDENTS

¶18

(BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY AGA FOR R1;

¶19

2 - NC: 2025:KHC:46455-DB WP No. 9451 of 2023

¶20

HC-KAR

¶21

SRI. SANKESH A BORA.,ADVOCATE FOR R2)

¶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 01ST AUGUST, 2019 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No. 4342/2017 AS PER ANNEXURE A AND ETC.

¶23

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

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and

¶25

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER

¶26

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

¶27

The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar is in petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, in Application No.4342/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short), calling in question Order dated 01.08.2019. The Tribunal by order stated supra allowed the application and set aside the order impugned dated 10.02.2017 ( Annexure-A4 ), passed by first respondent i.e., order of entrustment and Articles of charge dated 30.06.2017 issued by the second respondent.

¶28

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

¶29

3 - NC: 2025:KHC:46455-DB WP No. 9451 of 2023

¶30

HC-KAR

¶31

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

¶32

The applicant was appointed and was serving as a Village Accountant at Kasaba Hobli, Alur Taluk, Hassan District under respondent No.1-Revenue Department at the relevant point of time.

¶33

On 15.07.2015 one Sri.P.C.Basavaraju, Son of Channabasappa of Javagal Village, Arasikere Taluk, Hassan District has filed a complaint before the Police attached to the Karnataka Lokayukta stating that despite his application for correction of entries in Sy Nos.56/1 and 56/2, the applicant has failed to take any action. The said complaint was forwarded to the applicant by the Karnataka Lokayukta requiring him to submit his explanation. In response to the endorsement annexed with the complaint, the applicant submitted his reply on 07.09.2015, stating that, the survey number stated in the sale deed is Sy.No.56 and there are no mutation entries available in the name of seller through whom the complainant purchased the property and further in view of subsequent Podi Durasti of Sy.No.56 into

¶34

4 - NC: 2025:KHC:46455-DB WP No. 9451 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Sy.Nos.56/1 and 56/2, the same requires an enquiry. It was further submitted that on inspection the brother of the complainant was found in possession of the property as such the action at his end could not be taken. Dissatisfied with the reply, the Karnataka Lokayukta submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the first respondent seeking to entrust the enquiry.

¶37

The first respondent-Government upon receipt of the report entrusted the departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short). Upon order of entrustment, show cause notice along with Articles of charge came to be issued against the applicant.

¶38

Aggrieved by the order of entrustment and issuance of Articles of charge, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.4342/2017.

¶39

The respondent-State as well as Karnataka Lokayukta appeared and opposed the application.

¶40

5 - NC: 2025:KHC:46455-DB WP No. 9451 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

The Tribunal after perusal of entire material placed on record and on hearing both the learned counsel for the parties came to a conclusion that there is no dereliction of duty or inaction attributable to the applicant and further observed that when alternative, efficacious remedy is available to the applicant under Section 136 of the Karnataka Land Revenue Act, to avail remedies before the Appellate Authorities, held that the report and order of entrustment are unsustainable in law and accordingly, proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order of entrustment dated 10.02.2017 passed by first respondent and Articles of charge dated 30.06.2017 issued by second respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta, by its order dated 01.08.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question in this petition by the Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by three years eight months.

¶43

Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel

¶44

appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for first respondent and

¶45

6 -

¶46

NC: 2025:KHC:46455-DB WP No. 9451 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

Sri.Sankesh.A.Bora, learned counsel for second respondent.

¶49

Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶50

On a query regarding the explanation for delay

¶51

caused in filing the petition belatedly by three years eight months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any

¶52

suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. The only explanation offered at paragraph No.15 of the petition is that though the papers were entrusted on 18.12.2020 to the earlier counsel to prefer the petition, however, despite instructions, the counsel has

¶53

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

¶54

7 - NC: 2025:KHC:46455-DB WP No. 9451 of 2023

¶55

HC-KAR

¶56

amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary

¶57

jurisdiction.

¶58

The petitioner is not an exception to the case,

¶59

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 three years eight months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected .

¶60

Sd/(B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE

¶61

Sd/(T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

¶62

RR

¶63

List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5

Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

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