- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 11TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 7445 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M. S. BUILDING, DR. B. R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560 001. 2. SRI. S. N. MAHESHWARAPPA, S/O. LATE S. C. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKED AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE, R/AT NO. 1027,5TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BANGALORE-560 079, 3. SRI. BASAVARAJA C. NAGAPPA, S/O. LATE C. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 37 YEARS, WORKED AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, DASARAHALLI DIVISION, BBMP, BANGALORE-560 002, R/AT NO. 665/4, 1ST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN ROAD, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE-560 060. 4. URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED: 05TH NOVEMBER, 2019 PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No-6776-6777/2018 AS PER ANNEXURE-A. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T M NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta by its Registrar, in Application Nos.6776-6777/2018 before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short) is in petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question Order dated 05.11.2019. The Tribunal by order stated supra allowed the application and set aside the order impugned dated 11.09.2017 (Annexure- A12), passed by the second respondent and Articles of charge dated 31.07.2018 issued by third respondent- Karnataka Lokayukta by ARE-7, office of the third respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta (Annexure-A13). 2. The parties are referred to as per their rankings before the Tribunal. 3. A brief outline of facts leading to filing of the present petition are as under:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 The applicants herein are belonging to Public Works, Port and Inland Water Transport Department. At the time of filing of the application, they were working in the cadre of Assistant Executive Engineer and Assistant Engineer respectively, at Rajajinagar Sub-Division, BBMP, Bengaluru. A report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1964 has been forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta to the Government, stating that there is dereliction of duty as well as misconduct on the part of the applicants. The Government subsequent to receipt of the report passed an order entrusting the enquiry with third respondent- Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('CCA Rules, 1957' for short). 4. Upon entrustment, an enquiry officer was appointed, who has issued Articles of charge along with notice on the applicants. The applicants submitted their reply to the Articles of charge. Thereafter the applicants called in question the order of entrustment as well as - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 issuance of Articles of charge in Application Nos. 6776 and 6777/2018 before the Tribunal. 5. The Tribunal after considering the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, formed an opinion that there is no dereliction of duty or misconduct on the part of the applicants as alleged. That apart, since there is alternative, efficacious remedy available under the Karnataka Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 ('KMC Act, 1976' for short), before entertaining the complaint, the Karnataka Lokayukta ought to have suggested the complainant to take the remedies available under the provisions of KMC Act, 1976. Instead of that, the third respondent entertained the complaint and conducted an enquiry and submitted a report to the Government, which culminated in order of entrustment and subsequently in issuance of Articles of charge. Having held so the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application, setting aside the order stated supra, by its order dated 05.11.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by third - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 respondent-Karnataka Lokayukta in this petition belatedly by four years four months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years four months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly. In these circumstances, the writ petition is hit not only by delay but by laches too. The doctrine of delay and laches should not be brushed aside lightly. The writ Court, while exercising the power under Article 226 is called upon to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same, since the pivotal amplification is, it is exercising an extraordinary jurisdiction. - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46450-DB WP No. 7445 of 2024 8. The petitioner is not an exception to the case, when there is delay and laches in approaching the Court, than a citizen - party/litigant. The delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis. As the delay defeats all the rights, on scrutiny of the entire case papers, we find no reason to condone the enormous delay. This Court, if it ignores the obvious and enormous delay, will foster injustice, as it is likely to affect others. A finality attained cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of four years four months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE RR List No.: 2 Sl No.: 3