- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH 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. 18176 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR (ARE-7), KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI S.T. SRINIVASA, AGED ABOUT 49 YEARS, S/O L.T. THIMMEGOWDA, ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, (TEC) DIVISION, BBMP CORPORATION OFFICES, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 N.R. SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 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 IMPUGNED ORDER DATED AUGUST 22, 2019 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION No. 11171/2016 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: 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 and its Additional Registrar - respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Application No.11171/2016 are in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 22.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the application and - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 set-aside the order of entrustment under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘CCA Rules, 1957’ for short) vide order dated 14.06.2016 (Annexure-A10) passed by the first respondent and the articles of charge issued by the third respondent dated 29.08.2016 (Annexure-A11). 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:- The applicant joined the service as Assistant Engineer in the Public Works Department. He was deputed as Assistant Engineer to the Bruhat Bengaluru Mahanagara Palike and working with the BBMP. By the office order dated 28.05.2016, the Assistant Executive Engineer, Govindarajanagara Sub-division, BBMP relieved the applicant of the post and directed him to report to the Commissioner, BBMP. While the applicant was working as Assistant Engineer, Govindarajanagara, BBMP, he received an intimation from the Karnataka Lokayukta along with complaint lodged by one Mr.A.Harish against him. The - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 applicant filed his explanation before the Deputy Registrar (Enquiries-2). Not satisfied with the explanation, the Karnataka Lokayukta forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984) to the Government. The first respondent Government acting under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 entrusted the enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, 1957 with the Karnataka Lokayukta. Aggrieved by the order of entrustment, the applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.11171/2016 contending that there is no dereliction of duty attributable to him as he has taken action as contemplated under Section 321 and 462 of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'KMC Act, 1976'). The applicant contended that if the complainant is aggrieved by the actions contemplated, he has alternative, efficacious remedy under the KMC Act, 1976. He further submitted before the Tribunal that the Karnataka Lokayukta has failed to consider the provisions contemplated under Section 8(1)(b) and 9(5)(c) of the Act of 1984, which contemplates that if there are any alternative, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 efficacious and more proper remedy available to the party, it is the duty of the Lokayukta to suggest the complainant to approach such authority before proceeding with the complaint. Such an action is absent in the present proceeding taken by the Lokayukta. The Government has failed to consider this aspect of the matter and mechanically without application of mind entrusted the inquiry with the Lokayukta, which is per se illegal. 4. The respondent State as well as Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed before it and hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, comes to a conclusion that the applicant has taken all actions as contemplated under Section 321 and 462 of the KMC Act, 1976 and if there is any short fall it is for the party to resort to the remedy provided under the provisions of the KMC Act, 1976 and not to file a complaint. 6. The Tribunal further observed that the Karnataka Lokayukta without resorting to the provisions contained - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 under Sections 8 and 9 of the Act of 1984, was not right in submitting its report under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 to the Government. Further, the Tribunal was of the opinion that the Government without examining the materials as required under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, independently, mechanically proceeded to entrust enquiry under rule 14-A of CCA Rules, 1957 as such the order of entrustment is unsustainable in law. Having held so, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of entrustment as well as the Articles of Charge issued thereon, by its order dated 22.08.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by five years ten months. 7. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ papers. 8. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by five years ten months, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/ palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 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. 9. 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 five years ten months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48034-DB WP No. 18176 of 2025 10. In view of disposal of Writ Petition, pending I.A's if any stand disposed of. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 6