- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48035-DB WP No. 17182 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. 17182 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING. BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, REVENUE DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. T. RAVINDRAPPA, S/O. LATE HALAPPA. B. AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, WORKING AS A JOINT DIRECTOR (ADMN.), OFFICE OF THE COMMISSIONER OF SURVEY, SETTLEMENT & LAND RECORDS, K.R.CIRCLE, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48035-DB WP No. 17182 of 2025 …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 FEBRUARY 23, 2021 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION No. 3061/2020 (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 - second respondent in Application No.3061/2020 is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 23.02.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48035-DB WP No. 17182 of 2025 Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the application and set-aside the order of entrustment dated 01.07.2020, reserving a liberty to the first respondent to initiate disciplinary action for violation of conduct rules, if considered appropriate. 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 approached the Tribunal in Application No.3061/2020 calling in question the order of entrustment passed by first respondent dated 01.07.2020. The case of the applicant before the Tribunal was that there is no application of mind while entrusting the proceedings, as the first respondent acted solely on the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') as such the exercise of power by the first respondent under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 is unsustainable in law. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48035-DB WP No. 17182 of 2025 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 first respondent has not acted in terms of Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, which contemplates application of mind, whereas the first respondent in the case on hand acted solely on the report under Section 12(3) and proceeded to entrust the matter, which is untenable in law. Accordingly, proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of entrustment, however reserving liberty to take action if there is any violation of Conduct Rules with respect to possessing disproportionate assets, if considered appropriate, by its order dated 23.02.2021. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years four months. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48035-DB WP No. 17182 of 2025 6. 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. 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 Articles 226 and 227 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48035-DB WP No. 17182 of 2025 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 accordingly, rejected. 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 ct-vn