Dismissed¶46

The Registrar, v. the State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC22 Apr 2026WP/29035/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

delay and laches; writ jurisdiction within reasonable time; Article 226 no prescribed limitation; nearly seven years delay unreasonable; writ petition against KSAT order dated 01.08.2019 in Application No.1997/2017; Registrar and Additional Registrar of Enquiries-4, Karnataka Lokayukta; dismissal without entering merits; counsel failure to file and petitioners' failure to follow up.

What did the court decide?

Without going into the merits of the case, the writ petition is dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. ¶34

The Registrar, Vs the State of Karnataka — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:21746-DB WP No. 29035 of 2025

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 22^ND DAY OF APRIL, 2026

¶5

PRESENT

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT

¶7

AND

¶8

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO.29035 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

¶9

BETWEEN:

¶10

THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶11

THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQURIES-4, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶12

…PETITIONERS

¶13

Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka

¶14

(BY SRI. MADHU KIRAN JAGGA, ADVOCATE FOR SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

¶15

AND:

¶16

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560 001.

¶17

SRI. R. MANJUNATH, S/O LATE T. RAMANNA,

¶18

2 - NC: 2026:KHC:21746-DB WP No. 29035 of 2025

¶19

HC-KAR

¶20

AGED ABOUT 45 YEARS, PROJECT DIRECTOR, DISTRICT URBAN DEVELOPMENT CELL, RAMANAGARAM DISTRICT, RAMANAGARAM R/AT VINAYAKANAGAR, B M. ROAD, RAMANAGARAM.

¶21

…RESPONDENTS

¶22

(BY SRI. V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1)

¶23

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.1997/2017 DATED 01.08.2019 (ANNEXUREB) BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION AND ETC.

¶24

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

¶25

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

¶26

¶27

NC: 2026:KHC:21746-DB WP No. 29035 of 2025

¶28

HC-KAR

¶29

ORAL ORDER

¶30

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT)

¶31

Heard Sri. Madhu Kiran Jagga, learned counsel for

¶32

Sri. Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioners and Sri. V.Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers.

¶33

On hearing the learned counsel for the parties

¶34

and on perusal of the entire writ petition papers, we are of the considered opinion that without going into merits of the case, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed solely on the ground of delay and laches. The impugned order under challenge is dated 01.08.2019 in Application No.1997/2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru.

¶35

The present writ petition is filed before this Court on 19.09.2025. Nothing is stated or forthcoming from the writ petition averments with regard to delay and

¶36

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:21746-DB WP No. 29035 of 2025

¶37

HC-KAR

¶38

laches. However, when the Court queried the learned counsel for the petitioners, he submits that the counsel who was entrusted with the matter had failed to file the writ petition in time. No particulars with regard to entrustment of the matter to the previous counsel is indicated and it appears that on entrusting the writ petition, the petitioners-Institution failed to follow up with the counsel who was entrusted with filing of the writ petition. Having failed to follow up the process of filing the writ petition, it is rather unfortunate that the allegation is made against the counsel who was entrusted the matter.

¶39

We are aware that there is no prescribed

¶40

limitation to invoke jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. However that doesn’t mean that writ could be filed at any time. It is settled position of law that writ jurisdiction shall be invoked within a reasonable time. Nearly seven years delay cannot be considered as reasonable. We do not see any reason to entertain the writ petition after more than seven years from the date of

¶41

¶42

NC: 2026:KHC:21746-DB WP No. 29035 of 2025

¶43

HC-KAR

¶44

impugned order. Accordingly,

¶45

writ petition stands

¶46

dismissed for delay and laches.

¶47