Dismissed¶30

Sri M Mahesh v. the Divisional Controller

Karnataka HC10 Jun 2026WP/23888/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

KSRTC writ petition dismissed on delay and laches; belated 2025 challenge (WP No. 23888 of 2025, NC: 2026:KHC:27895) to 16.09.2017 award of III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.28/2015; eight-year delay without explanatory averments; merits left unconsidered; petitioner sought opportunity to lead evidence and remand citing back ache, kidney stone and grandmother's cancer; respondent Corporation argued only on delay, not merits; decided by Justice Jyoti M on 10.06.2026 under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution.

What did the court decide?

As there is an inordinate delay of eight years in filing the writ petition challenging the 2017 Labour Court award, and no averments have been made in the writ petition explaining the delay and laches, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. ¶30

Sri M Mahesh Vs the Divisional Controller — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:27895 WP No. 23888 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026

¶5

BEFORE

¶6

THE HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE JYOTI M WRIT PETITION NO. 23888 OF 2025 (L-KSRTC)

¶7

BETWEEN:

¶8

SRI. M.MAHESH, S/O. Y.MOHAN, AGED ABOUT 35 YEARS, R/AT NO.65/1, CHIKKABAZAR ROAD, SHIVAJINAGARA, BENGALURU-560 051. (BY SRI. ADINARAYAN, ADVOCATE)

¶9

…PETITIONER

¶10

AND:

¶11

Digitally signed by GEETHA P G Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶12

THE DIVISIONAL CONTROLLER, K.S.R.T.C., CENTRAL DIVISION, K.H.ROAD, BENGALURU 560 027 (BY SMT. RENUKA H.R., ADVOCATE)

¶13

…RESPONDENT

¶14

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, SEEKING CERTAIN RELIEFS.

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS LISTED FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, AN ORDER IS MADE AS UNDER:

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:27895 WP No. 23888 of 2025

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

ORAL ORDER

¶20

Sri.Adinarayan., counsel for the petitioner and

¶21

Smt.H.R.Renuka., counsel for the respondent have appeared in person.

¶22

The award dated:16.09.2017 passed by the III Addl. Labor Court, Bengaluru in I.D.No.28/2015 is called into question in 2025 in this writ petition on several grounds as setout in the memorandum of writ petition.

¶23

Counsel for the respective parties urged several contentions.

¶24

Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was artisan and he was suffering from back ache and kidney stone and he was constrained to remain absent from duty. He argued by saying that his grandmother was suffering from cancer and hence, he was not able to led evidence before the Labor Court. Counsel, therefore, submits that the petitioner may be accorded an opportunity to led evidence and the matter may be remanded.

¶25

¶26

NC: 2026:KHC:27895 WP No. 23888 of 2025

¶27

HC-KAR

¶28

Counsel appearing on behalf of the Corporation in presenting her arguments strenuously urged that there is an inordinate delay of almost eight years in raising the writ petition. Counsel submitted that she is not urging any contentions on the merits of the case and requested the Court to give finding only on delay and laches.

¶29

Heard the arguments and perused the papers with utmost care.

¶30

The order of the Labor Court is produced along with the writ petition and is marked as Annexure-A. The Labor Court passed the order in the year 2017 i.e., on 16.09.2017, whereas the present petition has been filed in the year 2025. There is an inordinate delay of eight years. No averments have been made in the writ petition explaining the delay and laches. Hence, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Accordingly, it is dismissed .

¶31

¶32

NC: 2026:KHC:27895 WP No. 23888 of 2025

¶33

HC-KAR

¶34