- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH DAY OF OCTOBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO.3232 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001. …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, BENGALURU – 560 001 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU – 560 001 3. K P SHANTHEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, Digitally signed by MADHUSHREE H Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 S/O LATE K. C. PUTTEGOWDA, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, KEMPEGOWDANAGARA SUB-DIVISION BBMP SHOPPING COMPLEX, 1ST FLOOR, J. C. ROAD, BENGALURU, R/A NO.99, 2ND CROSS, 3RD MAIN, MAHALAKSHMIPURAM, BENGALURU – 560 086 4. SRI. N. S. REVANNA, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O SIDDAPPA, OCC ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE OFFICER GANDHINAGAR SUB-DIVISION BBMP BENGALURU – 560 053 R/A NO.566, 4TH CROSS, MAHALAKSHMI LAYOUT BENGALURU – 560 086 …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY., AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO i) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 21/01/2020 BY THE HON’BLE KSAT IN APPLICATION NOS.7090 & 7091 OF 2018 CONNECTED WITH APPLICATION NO.7369/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AND ii) PASS ANY OTHER ORDER AS THIS HON’BLE COURT DEEMS FIT IN THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE, IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. THIS PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 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) This petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, by the Karnataka Lokayukta, calling in question, the order dated 21.01.2020 in Application Nos.7090 & 7091/2018 c/w Application No.7369/2018, passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’, for short), allowing the applications filed by the respondent Nos.3 and 4, setting aside the orders impugned. 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:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 On certain allegations of dereliction of duty and misconduct on the part of the applicants, while they were working in the Sub-Division of Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike (BBMP), as they have failed to take action with respect to a construction in violation of building bye-laws and sanctioned plan, the petitioner conducted an investigation in the matter and submitted its reports under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (‘Act of 1984’, for short). The Government subsequent to the report acting under Section 12(4) of the Act, 1984 passed an order entrusting the departmental enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeals) Rules, 1957, (‘CCA Rules’, for short). An Enquiry Officer was appointed and he issued articles of charges against the applicants. The order of entrustment as well as issuance of Articles of Charge were the subject matter before the Tribunal in the applications. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 4. The Tribunal having heard the parties, was of the opinion that the applicants – respondent Nos.3 and 4 herein, have taken action under Section 321(1), sub-sections (2) and (3) of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (‘KMC Act’, for short) culminating in passing of demolition order under Section 462 of the KMC Act in respect of the building which was being constructed in violation of bye-laws and sanctioned plan. Further, the materials produced before the Tribunal was taken into consideration wherein, there was an order passed by the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal in Appeal No.1309 of 2017, staying the order of demolition of the building. 5. The Tribunal having considered the material placed before it allowed the applications reasoning its order more particularly, in paragraph Nos.11, 12 and 13, holding that in the presence of alternative efficacious remedies available under Sections 8 and 9 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 of Act of 1984, the order impugned, as well as articles of charges issued are not sustainable in law. Further taking into consideration of Section 321-B of KMC Act, which provides action against the erring officials. The Tribunal was of the opinion that the remedies provided under the KMC Act are more appropriate and efficacious and held that the Lokayukta ought not to have entertained the complaint. Accordingly, allowed the applications and set aside the order impugned by order dated 21.01.2020. It is this order, which is called in question in the present petition filed on 01.02.2025 i.e., almost 5 years from the date of order passed by the Tribunal. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned AGA for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 7. Sri.Joseph Anthony, with all vehemence submitted that the order of entrustment of enquiry is an impugned order and it is open for the applicants - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 to face the enquiry and put forward their defenses. The allegations made are serious in nature. During the course of argument, to the query of the Court regarding unexplained delay for filing the petition after 5 years from the date of passing of the order by the Tribunal, the learned counsel for the petitioner is unable to explain the delay to the satisfaction of this Court. 8. The Tribunal having considered the entire material on record has come to the conclusion that there is no dereliction of duty or misconduct as alleged against the applicants. That apart, there are other remedies available in the KMC Act which are more appropriate and efficacious. The challenge to the order of demolition issued against the alleged illegal constructions was pending consideration before the Karnataka Appellate Tribunal and an interim order was granted against the order of demolition. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:40306-DB WP No. 3232 of 2025 9. Having considered the entire material before it, the Tribunal has come to the conclusion that the petitioner ought not to have entertained the complaint and the Government has failed to apply its mind to the material placed while entrusting the enquiry. 10. We find no infirmities in the order passed by the Tribunal which justify interference. Added to these, the present petition is filed after lapse of 5 years and this delay has not been explained in the manner required under law. Under these circumstances, the petition sans merit is dismissed. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE MH/- List No.: 1 Sl No.: 6