Karnataka Lokayukta Vs Sri. J.R Bhaskar

SRI. J.R BHASKAR, S/O J. M. RAMU, AGED ABOUT 60 YEARS, WORKING AS ASST. EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, NATIONAL HIGHWAY SUB DIVISON, K. R. CIRCLE, BANGALORE 560001.

¶19

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY,

¶20

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶21

HC-KAR

¶22

URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶23

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS SECRETAY, DEPT. OF PUBLIC WORKS PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560001.

¶24

…RESPONDENTS

¶25

(BY SRI VIKAS ROJIPURA., AGA)

¶26

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING/ SET ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 10.01.2023 PASSED IN A.No-228/2020 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KSAT BANGALORE ANNEXURE-B AND DISMISS THE A. No.228/2020.

¶27

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

¶28

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND)

¶31

Heard Sri. K Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for the respondents.

¶32

The instant writ petitions are filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta calling in question the order passed by the

¶33

3 -

¶34

NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶35

HC-KAR

¶36

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal¹ in Application No.228 of 2020 dated 10.01.2023, whereby the Tribunal set aside the order granting sanction and the articles of charge.

¶37

Briefly stated, the facts of the case are that while respondent No.1 was working as Assistant Executive Engineer, BBMP, Kengeri Sub-Division, one Sri Giriyappa lodged a complaint against Sri Omar Khalid alleging construction of an apartment by obtaining a sanctioned plan on fabricated documents and also in violation of the sanctioned plan. The complaint is dated 23.11.2013. Pursuant thereto, respondent No.1 conducted a spot inspection and, having found the construction to be contrary to the sanctioned plan, issued a provisional order under Sections 321(1) and (2) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976² on 23.11.2013, followed by a confirmation order dated 07.12.2013 under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act. Respondent No.1 further issued a communication dated 27.12.2013 to the BESCOM authorities directing disconnection of the temporary electricity supply to the building. Thereafter, respondent No.1 proceeded to assess

¶38

1 Tribunal

¶39

2 KMC Act

¶40

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶41

HC-KAR

¶42

violation for demolition and passed an order under Section 462 of the Act. At that stage, respondent No.1 was transferred from the post of Assistant Executive Engineer, Kengeri Sub-Division, on 21.01.2014.

¶43

3.1 Aggrieved by the orders passed under Section 321 of the KMC Act, Sri Omar Khalid preferred appeal before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1233 of 2013. It is relevant to note that even prior to filing of the complaint before respondent No.1, Sri Giriyappa had instituted a suit for injunction in O.S. No.1566 of 2013 against Sri Omar Khalid, in which an interim order of injunction was granted on 14.11.2013.

¶44

3.2 Subsequently, Sri Giriyappa and Sri Omar Khalid entered into a compromise in O.S. No.1566 of 2013 consequent to which the Appeal No.1233 of 2013 before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal³ was withdrawn. However, much prior to such compromise, Sri Giriyappa, on 02.12.2013, had filed a complaint before the petitioner herein against respondent No.1, alleging inaction on the complaint dated 23.11.2013, without

¶45

3 KAT

¶46

5 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

disclosing the pendency of the civil dispute in O.S. No.1566 of 2013.

¶49

3.3 In response to the notice issued by the petitioner,

¶50

respondent No.1 submitted a detailed reply setting out the action taken on the complaint and also disclosing the pendency of the civil dispute in O.S. No.1566 of 2013. It is also to be noted that the subsequent compromise entered into between the parties was brought to the notice of the petitioner with a request to drop the proceedings against the BBMP officials. However, the petitioner proceeded to conduct an enquiry and submitted a report recommending investigation. Accordingly, by Government Order dated 19.05.2016, an enquiry was entrusted to the petitioner and, thereafter, articles of charge came to be issued on 18.11.2016.

¶51

3.4 The Tribunal, taking note of the pendency of civil disputes between the parties, held that such disputes were required to be adjudicated by the civil court and that the BBMP authorities were not competent to decide the same. The Tribunal further held that the complaint was filed without disclosure of the pending civil dispute in O.S. No.1566 of 2013.

¶52

6 -

¶53

NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶54

HC-KAR

¶55

It was also observed that even after the compromise in O.S.

¶56

No.1566 of 2013, the parties were engaged in further civil litigation in O.S. No.8859 of 2013, instituted subsequent to the compromise, seeking a mandatory injunction, which in substance was in the nature of a suit for declaration of title. The Tribunal held that under the guise of seeking removal of alleged encroachment, a complaint was filed before the Lokayukta. On these grounds, the Tribunal set aside the order of sanction dated 19.05.2016 and the articles of charge dated 18.11.2016.

¶57

Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing

¶58

for the petitioner, submits that the Tribunal failed to consider the enquiry report. It is further contended that the contentions urged by respondent No.1 before the Tribunal could very well be raised during the course of the enquiry and would be considered on their own merits. It is submitted that the application filed before the Tribunal challenging the articles of charge was premature.

¶59

4.1 It is also contended that the Tribunal failed to consider the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the

¶60

7 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶61

HC-KAR

¶62

Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984⁴ , and the Government Order dated 19.05.2016 entrusting the enquiry, which was based on the material available on record. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned order of the Tribunal is unsustainable in law.

¶63

Shri Vikas Rajipural, learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for respondent Nos.1 and 2, supports the submissions advanced on behalf of the petitioner.

¶64

We have considered the submissions of the learned

¶65

counsel for the petitioner and the learned AGA and have perused the writ papers. Having done so, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition for the reasons stated hereinafter.

¶66

Sri Giriyappa filed a complaint dated 23.11.2013 before the BBMP alleging encroachment and deviation from the sanctioned plan, and further alleging that the sanctioned plan was obtained on fabricated documents. Prior to filing the said complaint, Sri Giriyappa had instituted a suit for injunction in O.S. No.1566 of 2013 against Sri Omar Khalid, wherein the Civil Court, by order dated 14.11.2013, granted an interim injunction against Sri Omar Khalid.

¶67

4 Act 1984

¶68

8 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶69

HC-KAR

¶70

7.1 Pursuant to the complaint dated 23.11.2013, respondent No.1 conducted a spot inspection on the very same day and, having found deviation from the approved plan, issued a provisional order under Sections 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act. However, Sri Giriyappa filed a complaint before the petitioner on 02.12.2013 alleging inaction on the part of respondent No.1. Significantly, the said complaint did not disclose the pendency of the civil suit in O.S.No.1566 of 2013.

¶71

7.2 Subsequently, Sri Giriyappa instituted O.S.No.8859 of 2013 on 05.12.2013 seeking a mandatory injunction for demolition of the construction put up by Sri Omar Khalid. On 07.12.2013, respondent No.1 passed a confirmation order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act directing demolition within seven days. Thereafter, by communication dated 27.12.2013, the BESCOM authorities were directed to stop the temporary power supply to the building. Respondent No.1 was transferred from the said post on 21.01.2014.

¶72

7.3 Sri Giriyappa and Sri Omar Khalid thereafter entered into a compromise, and O.S.No.1566 of 2013 came to be disposed of in terms of the compromise on 13.02.2014.

¶73

9 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶74

HC-KAR

¶75

After the compromise was brought to the notice of the petitioner with a request to drop further proceedings, it appears that upon recurrence of disputes between the parties, Sri Giriyappa sought revival of his complaint and further investigation. Nearly two years after the compromise, the petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Act, 1984 on 24.03.2016 recommending disciplinary proceedings. Based on the said report, the Government, by order dated 19.05.2016, entrusted the departmental enquiry to the petitioner against respondent No.1, and articles of charge were issued on 18.11.2016.

¶76

7.4 The Tribunal, while examining the validity of the sanction and the articles of charge, held that the dispute between Sri Giriyappa and Sri Omar Khalid was essentially civil in nature and required adjudication by a competent civil court, and not by respondent No.1 or the BBMP authorities. The Tribunal further observed that under the guise of removal of alleged encroachment, the complainant was in effect seeking enforcement of a mandatory injunction, which was already the

¶77

10 -

¶78

NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶79

HC-KAR

¶80

subject matter of civil proceedings. For these reasons, the Tribunal set aside the articles of charge.

¶81

We have independently examined the facts and circumstances of the case. The sequence of events clearly demonstrates that upon receipt of the complaint on 23.11.2013, respondent No.1 promptly conducted a spot inspection and issued provisional orders under Sections 321(1) and (2) of the KMC Act on the same day. Despite this, the complainant hastily approached the Lokayukta on 02.12.2013 alleging inaction, suppressing the pendency of O.S. No.1566 of 2013. Within three days thereafter, Sri Giriyappa instituted O.S. No.8859 of 2013 seeking a mandatory injunction. On 07.12.2013, respondent No.1 passed the final order under Section 321(3) of the KMC Act directing demolition of the unauthorized portion of the building within seven days, and on 27.12.2013 directed BESCOM to disconnect the temporary power supply. Thereafter, respondent No.1 was transferred on 21.01.2014.

¶82

From the date of the complaint till the transfer of respondent No.1, the chronology of events unmistakably

¶83

11 - NC: 2026:KHC:1573-DB WP No. 14391 of 2023

¶84

HC-KAR

¶85

establishes that all necessary actions were taken expeditiously.

¶86

It cannot, therefore, be contended that there was any delay or dereliction of duty on the part of respondent No.1. Once respondent No.1 was transferred from the jurisdiction, he could not be held accountable for any subsequent developments relating to the alleged building violations.

¶87

The Tribunal, having taken note of these aspects, has rightly concluded that the articles of charge were not sustainable against respondent No.1. We find no infirmity in the reasoning or conclusion of the Tribunal. The petitioner has failed to make out any demonstrable ground warranting interference with the impugned order.

¶88

Accordingly, the writ petition is devoid of merit and stands dismissed .

¶89

SD/(S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE

¶90

SD/(K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE

¶91

*MV/List No.: 1 Sl No.: 13

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Sri. J.R Bhaskar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. Sri. J.R Bhaskar

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. S Pushpavathi Vs the Principal Secretary

Sri B Anil Kumar Vs the State of Karnataka

The Commissioner of Central Tax Vs P J B Engineers Pvt. Ltd.

Sri. A.V Srinivasulu Naidu, Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Krishna Nayak K N Vs the State of Karnataka

Smt. Preethi. a. Nayak Vs the State of Karnataka