- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 15TH DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE B M SHYAM PRASAD AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 9176 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 2. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, N R SQUARE, BENGALURU - 560 002. 3. SRI. KRISHNAMURTHY, S/O THIMMAIAH, AGED 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WARD NO. 133, GALI ANJANEYASWAMY DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU - 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) 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 31/01/2020 PASSED BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN APPLICATION BEARING NO.3346/2017 (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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta and its Registrar of Enquiries-3 - second and third respondents in Application No.3345 and 3346/2017 before the Karnataka State Administration Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short) are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the order dated 31.01.2020. The Tribunal by the impugned order allowed the application and set aside the order dated 07.01.2017 passed by the first respondent (Annexure-A23) and the articles of charge dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure- A22). 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:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 The applicant Sri.Krishnamurthy along with another were before the Tribunal in Application Nos.3345 and 3346/2017, calling in question the order of entrustment of enquiry under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short 'CCA Rules, 1957') by the first respondent and the articles of charge dated 12.04.2017 (Annexure-A22), on the premise that the Karnataka Lokayukta has failed to consider the provision under Sections 8 and 9 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 prior to entertaining the complaint and forwarding the report under Section 12(3) to the Government. They further contended that the complaint filed by R.K.Jain before the Karnataka Lokayukta is civil in nature by improving its version does not attract any disciplinary action. The Government has not considered this aspect of the matter while taking decision on the reports submitted under Section 12(3) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 while exercising power under Section 12(4) of - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 the same Act. In these circumstances, the order is hit by non application of mind. In these circumstances, the articles of charge in furtherance of the order get vitiated. With this he sought to allow the application and set aside the order of entrustment as well as the issuance of articles of charge. 4. The State Government as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of rival submissions as well as the materials placed before it has formed an opinion that the Commissioner alone is the competent authority to issue provisional order or demolition order and to take necessary action, whenever authorities found unauthorized construction that too by violating the rules and regulations much less by laws of the KMC and no other person is having any right to pass demolition order. The Tribunal has further observed that the - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 respondents have not placed any material to show that such power excised by the Commissioner have been delegated to any other officer as such the non application of mind by the Government while exercising power under Section 12(4) of the Act, 1984. In view of the same, the Tribunal comes to a conclusion that the whole enquiry is to be conducted on the entrustment by the authorities is nothing but a futile exercise. Having held so, proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order of entrustment dated 07.01.2017 vide Annexure-A23 and the articles of charge dated 12.04.2017 Vide Annexure A22 by its order dated 31.01.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, is called in question by the petitioner-Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by five years two months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V. Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 of 2025 respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. When queried regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by five years two 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. 8. 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 - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53195-DB WP No. 9176 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 five years two months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is 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 PK List No.: 3 Sl No.: 6 ct-vn