Dismissed¶46

Sri. Prakash M Dhareshwara, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2026RP/409/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court of Karnataka, Bengaluru | RP No. 409 of 2023 (NC: 2026:KHC:1579-DB) | decided 12-01-2026 | Coram: D K Singh & S Rachaiaha JJ (per D K Singh J) | Review petition dismissed; 29-day filing delay condoned via I.A.No.1/2023 | Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984: S.12(3) report and S.14(A) entrustment order found free of infirmity | Dismissal of W.P. No. 10125/2022 (26.06.2023) not disturbed | Petitioner (Assistant Executive Engineer, Mahadevapura Zone) free to challenge any future punishment order after departmental inquiry concludes.

What did the court decide?

Delay of 29 days in filing condoned (I.A.No.1/2023 allowed); review petition dismissed, with liberty reserved to the petitioner to challenge any final order of punishment that may issue on conclusion of the departmental proceedings. ¶46

Sri. Prakash M Dhareshwara, Vs the State of Karnataka — Karnataka HC (2026) — LawSathi Research

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1579-DB RP No. 409 of 2023

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH REVIEW PETITION NO. 409 OF 2023

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

SRI. PRAKASH M DHARESHWARA, S/O M.S DHARESHWAR, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER O/O THE JOINT COMMISSIONER MAHADEVAPURA ZONE, IPPI MAIN ROAD, BANGALORE RESIDING AT NO. 135 3rd MAIN ROAD, 5th CROSS, VIDHYARANYAPURA, BANGALORE 97.

¶11

…PETITIONER

¶12

(BY SRI. ACHARI MANJULA VITTALA., ADVOCATE)

¶13

Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶14

AND:

¶15

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT,

¶16

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP) VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE 560001

¶17

THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.

¶18

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES -13 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE 560001.

¶19

…RESPONDENTS

¶20

(BY SRI. M.N.SUDEV HEGDE, AGA FOR R1;

¶21

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1579-DB RP No. 409 of 2023

¶22

HC-KAR

¶23

SRI. VENKATESH S.ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2 & R3)

¶24

THIS REVIEW PETITION IS UNDER ORDER 47 RULE 1 OF CPC READ WITH 114 OF THE CPC, PRAYING THAT THIS HON'BLE COURT BE PLEASED TO REVIEW THE ORDER DATED 26/06/2023 PASSED IN W.P. NO. 10125/2022, AND CONSEQUENTLY RESTORE THE ORIGINAL WRIT PETITION NO. 10125/2022, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

¶25

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

¶26

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S RACHAIAH

¶27

ORAL ORDER

¶28

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

¶29

The present review petition has been filed along with I.A.No.1/2023 seeking to condone the delay of 29 days.

¶30

We find the reason stated in the affidavit is bona fide and sufficient and therefore, I.A.No.1/2023 is allowed and delay of 29 days in filing the petition is condoned.

¶31

The present review petition has been filed seeking review of the order dated 26.06.2023 passed by a Co-ordinate Bench presided by Hon'ble Mrs. Justice

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:1579-DB RP No. 409 of 2023

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

K.S. Mudagal (Retd.) and Hon'ble Mr. Justice

¶36

Ramachandra D. Huddar (Retd.)

¶37

The petitioner did not remove the office objection regarding filing of acknowledgment for having served the copies on respondent Nos.2 and 3. The learned Division Bench noted the fact that the complaint was filed against the petitioner in the year 2016, allegedly for permission to construct a three storied building in contravention of the building laws applicable. Entrustment report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for brevity 'the Act' ), came to be submitted by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha to the Government.

¶38

The Government after considering the report, entrusted the Departmental Inquiry to the Lokayuktha. The report under Section 12(3) of the Act and entrustment Order under Section 14(A) of the Act, were challenged by

¶39

filing the writ petition. The writ petition was filed in the year 2022 in respect of the complaint, which was filed

¶40

¶41

NC: 2026:KHC:1579-DB RP No. 409 of 2023

¶42

HC-KAR

¶43

against the petitioner in the year 2016. From the conduct

¶44

of the petitioner, it appears that petitioner was only interested in prolonging the proceedings before the High Court and therefore, the petition was dismissed.

¶45

We have considered the report under Section 12(3) as well as the entrustment order. We do not find that the report under Section 12(3) or entrustment order suffers from any infirmity.

¶46

Therefore, we dismiss this review petition. However, the petitioner would be at liberty to challenge the final order of punishment, if he suffers a punishment order, as a result of the conclusion of the Departmental

¶47

proceedings.

¶48

Sd/(D K SINGH) JUDGE

¶49

Sd/(S RACHAIAH) JUDGE

¶50

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 16

¶51

Sri. Prakash M Dhareshwara, v. the State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sri. Prakash M Dhareshwara, 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

Smt.Gangambika Vs the State of Karnataka

Karnataka Residential Education Institution Society Vs Smt Tanuja R

Sri. Rama Veerasai Vs State of Karnataka

Rpw Warehousing Private Limited Vs Sri. Shiva Shankarappa

Mukunda H R Vs the Divisional Controller Bmtc

Chandrappa. Y Vs the Divisional Controller/Disciplinary Authority