Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Karnataka · body

2025 DAILYLAW 73963 (KAR)

SRI. C. M. MANJUNATH v. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA

WP/47078/2017 · 2025-08-29

D K Singh, Venkatesh Naik T

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33626-DB WP No. 47078 of 2017 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 29TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T WRIT PETITION NO. 47078 OF 2017 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: 1. SRI. C. M. MANJUNATH S/O. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 29 YEARS, R/AT NO.40 D, 9TH CROSS, CANARA BANK LAYOUT, VIDYARANYAPURA POST, BENGALURU-560 097. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. DILIP KUMAR L., ADVOCATE FOR SRI. SANGAMESH R B., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, VIDHANA SOUDHA, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001. 2. THE LOK AYUKTA STATE OF KARNATAKA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. 3. BENGALURU DEVELOPMENT AUTHORITY T. CHOWDAIAH ROAD, Digitally signed by VASANTHA KUMARY B K Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33626-DB WP No. 47078 of 2017 BENGALURU, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, PIN-560 019. 4. THE BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE HUDSON CIRCLE, BY ITS COMMISSIONER, BENGALURU-560 001. 5. THE REGISTRAR OF CO OPERATIVE SOCIETIES CO OPERATION DEPARTMENT, ALI ASGAR ROAD, BENGALURU-560 001. 6. SRI. VIKRAM SIMHA S/O. LATE NANJUNDAIAH, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, NO.197, 11TH CROSS, 3RD MAIN, SAMPANGI RAM NAGAR, BENGALURU-560 027. 7. CANARA BANK EMPLOYEES CO OPERATIVE HOUSING SOCIETY LTD., BY ITS SECRETARY, CANARA BANK HEAD OFFICE, 112, J.C. ROAD, BENGALURU-560 002. …RESPONDENTS (BY SMT. PRATHIBHA R.K., AGA FOR R-1 & R-5; SRI. VENKATESH S.ARBATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R-2; SRI. H.T.BASAVARAJA, ADVOCATE FOR R-3; SMT. SARITHA KULKARNI, ADVOCATE FOR R-4; SRI. ABHINAY Y.T., ADVOCATE FOR R-7; VIDE ORDER DATED:03.09.2021, NOTICE TO R-6 IS HELD SUFFICIENT) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DTD.19.6.2017 VIDE ANNEX-A, ETC. - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33626-DB WP No. 47078 of 2017 THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VENKATESH NAIK T ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH) 1. The petitioner has filed this writ petition impugning the order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru in case No.Compt/LOK/BCD-1/2007/ARE-1. 2. The petitioner is neither the complainant nor a Public/Government servant against whom the enquiry/investigation has been conducted by the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta in the order impugned in this writ petition. 3. We have put it to the learned counsel representing the petitioner about the locus of the petitioner to maintain - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33626-DB WP No. 47078 of 2017 this writ petition challenging the order dated 19.06.2017 passed by the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner is the resident of the area where the layout has been sanctioned by the Bangalore Development Authority in respect of which the enquiry / investigation has been conducted by the Hon'ble Karnataka Lokayukta. 5. The petitioner is also not an allottee nor the applicant for allotment of any site in the layout. We find it strange that the petitioner has filed this writ petition which has remained pending since 2017 before this Court. It appears that the petitioner is prosecuting the proxy litigation without there being any grievance of the petitioner and also locus to maintain the writ petition. 6. We would like to dismiss this writ petition with costs. However, considering the experience of the learned counsel for the petitioner who is before us, we defer it from imposing the cost on the petitioner. However we - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:33626-DB WP No. 47078 of 2017 warn the petitioner that in future he should not indulge in any proxy litigation otherwise he would face serious consequence as the petitioner does not have locus to maintain this writ petition. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE Sd/- (VENKATESH NAIK T) JUDGE DHA List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23