- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48029-DB WP No. 28525 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. 28525 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 3. MR. M.C. SRINIVAS, AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48029-DB WP No. 28525 of 2025 S/O LATE CHIKKANNA, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE ENGINEERING SUB-DIVISION, TUMKUR. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED NOVEMBER 18, 2021 IN APPLICATIONS BEARING No. 6617/2018 (ANNEXURE-A) AS ISSUED BY THE KSAT. 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 - respondent No.3 in Application No.6617/2018 is in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 18.11.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the application - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48029-DB WP No. 28525 of 2025 and set-aside the order of entrustment dated 28.06.2017 and the articles of charge issued thereon and remitted the matter to the disciplinary authority to comply with the mandatory requirement of Section 9(3)(a & b) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act and thereafter to proceed in the matter in accordance with law. 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.6617/2018 calling in question the order of entrustment of inquiry with the Lokayukta and subsequent issuance of Articles of charge by Lokayukta on the premise that there is non-compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 9(3)(a & b) of the Act. It is his further case that the Government has failed to consider this aspect of the matter while entrusting the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta. 4. The respondent State as well as Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48029-DB WP No. 28525 of 2025 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed on record and the rival submissions made by learned counsel for the respective parties is of the opinion that there is a short fall in compliance of mandatory requirement of Section 9(3)(a&b) of the Act by Karnataka Lokayukta prior to forwarding the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'Act of 1984) has not been considered by the Government while exercising power under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984. The Tribunal having opined supra, proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of entrustment and issuance of articles of charge, however remanded the matter to the disciplinary authority to comply with the mandatory requirements contemplated under Section 9(3)(a&b) of the Act and thereafter proceed in the matter in accordance with the law, by its order dated 18.11.2021. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by three years ten months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2. Perused the entire writ papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48029-DB WP No. 28525 of 2025 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by three years ten 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 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. 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 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 three years ten - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:48029-DB WP No. 28525 of 2025 months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. 9. 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.1 ct-vn