Dismissed¶50

M R Balakrishna v. the Union of India

Karnataka HC9 Jan 2026WP/48070/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Karnataka High Court, Bengaluru; NC: 2026:KHC:1323; WP No. 48070 of 2019 (GM-RES); M.G.S. Kamal J; 09-01-2026; writ of mandamus; Lokayukta/Upalokayuktha investigation; Misc. No.720/2014; complainant to furnish records and documents; Rs.136 Crores One-time Additional Central Assistance; Bidar; Gurudwara Nanak Jira Sahib; Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act 1999; Harsh Gupta IAS; misappropriation of funds; public cause without personal interest; Articles 226 and 227; writ petition dismissed with liberty.

What did the court decide?

No error or illegality can be found in the Lokayuktha calling upon the petitioner to furnish the records in support of his allegations. ¶43

M R Balakrishna Vs the Union of India — Writ and Judicial Review | Karnataka HC (2026)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶50

Issue for consideration

Whether the 3rd respondent (Lokayukta) should be directed to conclude the investigation in Misc. No.720/2014 by securing records itself, without expecting any documents to be furnished by the petitioner. +1 more

¶28

Court's answer

No error or illegality can be found in the Lokayuktha calling upon the petitioner to furnish the records in support of his allegations.

¶43

Ratio / Principle

It is a settled position of law that a party seeking issuance of a writ of mandamus shall clearly point out his legal rights and the corresponding duty/obligation, as well as refusal/denial or inaction on the part of State authorities.

¶44

Key takeaways

The petitioner being the complainant alleging misappropriation of funds by one Harsh Gupta, IAS, he may have to substantiate his allegations as called upon by the Lokayuktha; the submission that the Lokayuktha had taken suo motu action and therefore cannot compel the petitioner to furnish records cannot be countenanced.ratio¶48
Petition lacks merits; the petitioner is espousing the public cause without having any personal interest in the subject matter, and liberty is reserved to him to seek such remedies as may be available under law, if so advised.ratio¶49

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Writ Petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India — prayer for a direction to the Lokayukta to conclude the investigation in Misc. No.720/2014 by securing records itself, without requiring the petitioner-complainant to furnish documents — complaint alleged illegal use of Rs.136 Crores granted by the Union of India under One-time Additional Central Assistance for pilgrim and tourist infrastructure in Bidar (improvement of Gurudwara Nanak Jira Sahib), contrary to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999, against one Harsh Gupta, IAS — Held: no error or illegality in the Lokayuktha calling upon the complainant to furnish records; a party seeking a writ of mandamus must clearly point out his legal right, the corresponding duty/obligation of the State, and refusal/denial or inaction; a complainant alleging misappropriation must substantiate his allegations when called upon, and the plea that suo motu action by the Lokayuktha precludes such a demand cannot be countenanced; petitioner espousing a public cause without personal interest, with liberty reserved to seek available remedies — Petition dismissed.

¶1

¶2

NC: 2026:KHC:1323 WP No. 48070 of 2019

¶3

HC-KAR

¶4

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶5

DATED THIS THE 9^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2026

¶6

BEFORE

¶7

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL WRIT PETITION NO. 48070 OF 2019 (GM-RES)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

M R BALAKRISHNA ADVOCATE, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS No.113, 1^ST FLOOR, INSPIRATIONS ART FRAMING GALLERY BUILDING 2^ND MAIN ROAD, SHESHADRIPURAM, BENGALURU KARNATAKA - 560 020. …PETITIONER

¶10

(BY SRI. ABHINAY Y T.,ADVOCATE)

¶11

AND:

¶12

Digitally signed by SUMA B N Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶13

THE UNION OF INDIA REPRESENTED BY THE SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL AND TRAINING, GOVERNMENT OF INDIA, NEW DELHI - 110 001.

¶14

THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETRY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.

¶15

THE HON BLE LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BENGALURU, KARNATAKA - 560 001.

¶16

¶17

NC: 2026:KHC:1323 WP No. 48070 of 2019

¶18

HC-KAR

¶19

REP. BY IT'S REGISTRAR.

¶20

…RESPONDENTS

¶21

(BY SRI. ADITYA SINGH, CGC FOR R1; SMT. SUKANYA BALIGA ., AGA FOR R2; SRI. K.S. MALLIKARJUNA REDDY., ADVOCATE FOR R3)

¶22

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO DIRECT THE R.3 TO CONCLUDE THE INVESTIGATION IN MISC NO.720.2014 ANNEX.C BY SECURING RECORDS FROM THE CONCERNED OFFICES IMMEDIATELY AND WITHOUT EXPECTING ANY DOCUMENTS TO BE FURNISHED BY THE PETITIONER.

¶23

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARINGIN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

¶24

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.G.S. KAMAL

¶25

ORAL ORDER

¶26

This petition is filed by the petitioner seeking following

¶27

reliefs:

¶28

'' (a). Direct the 3rd respondent to conclude the investigation in Misc. No.720/2014 (Annexure C) by securing records from the concerned offices immediately and without expecting any documents to be furnished by the petitioner; and

¶29

(b). Pass such others as this Hon'ble Court deems fit to pass on the facts of the case, in the interest of justice and equity.''

¶30

Petitioner claim to have filed a complaint in Misc.

¶31

No.720/2014 before the Upalokayuktha noticing illegality in using the funds granted by Union of India under One-time

¶32

¶33

NC: 2026:KHC:1323 WP No. 48070 of 2019

¶34

HC-KAR

¶35

Additional Central Assistance amounting to Rs.136 Crores for the purpose of improving the pilgrim and tourist infrastructure in Bidar city. That a report in this regard is stated to have been submitted by the Chief Engineer, Lokayuktha confirming the illegalities mentioned by the petitioner. The grievance of the petitioner is that the office of Lokayuktha instead of concluding the enquiry and submitting the report, has been repeatedly issuing notice to the petitioner to furnish the records which are duly replied by the petitioner.

¶36

Learned counsel for the petitioner reiterating the grounds urged in the memorandum of petition submits that the aforesaid grant was for the purpose of improvement of Gurudwara Nanak Jira Sahib located in the city of Bidar. That

¶37

the entire process of procuring the goods and services for the purpose to which the grant of Rs.136 Crores was made runs contrary to the Karnataka Transparency in Public Procurement Act, 1999 which constrained the petitioner to approach the Upalokayuktha by filing a complaint. That instead of proceeding to investigate into the matter, the Office of Lokayuktha has been issuing notices and reminders to the

¶38

4 - NC: 2026:KHC:1323 WP No. 48070 of 2019

¶39

HC-KAR

¶40

petitioner calling upon him to furnish the documents in support

¶41

of the allegation made in his complaint. That the said complaint was lodged in the year 2014 and there is no progress in the matter. That the delay in disposal of the complaint has constrained the petitioner to approach this Court.

¶42

Heard and perused the records.

¶43

Petitioner who is an advocate by profession appears to be espousing the public cause. Since he has made allegations of misappropriation of funds by certain Harsh Gupta, IAS, the Lokayuktha has called upon him to furnish documents in justification of allegations made. No error or illegality can be found in the Lokayuktha calling upon the petitioner to furnish the records.

¶44

It is settled position of law that party seeking issuance of writ of mandamus, shall clearly point out his legal rights and the corresponding duty/obligation as well as refusal/denial or inaction on the part of State authorities. Despite repeated queries by this Court in this regard, learned counsel for the petitioner points out only to the prayer and submits that though the petitioner had filed a complaint before the Lokayuktha, it

¶45

¶46

NC: 2026:KHC:1323 WP No. 48070 of 2019

¶47

HC-KAR

¶48

had taken suo-muto action and therefore Lokayuktha cannot compel the petitioner to furnish the records. His submission cannot be countenanced in the light of petitioner being the complainant alleging misappropriation of funds by one Harsh Gupta, IAS as noted above, he may have to substantiate his allegations as called upon by the Lokayuktha.

¶49

Petition lacks merits. Since the petitioner is espousing the public cause without he having any personal interest in the subject matter, reserving liberty to the petitioner to seek such remedies as may be available under law, if so advised. Petition

¶50

is dismissed.

¶51

SD/(M.G.S. KAMAL) JUDGE

¶52

¶53

List No.: 1 Sl No.: 12

M R Balakrishna v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M R Balakrishna v. the Union of India

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ms. Alivia Das Vs Union of India

M/S Embassy Property Developments Private Limited Vs the Deputy Commissioner

Sri T L Rajanna Vs the Karnataka Slum Development Board

Basavaraju S/O Basavaiah Vs Sarojamma

Smt Bylamma Dead by Lrs Vs Sri Venkatesh

Lalaji R Mendon Vs the Commissioner for Hindu Religious