- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 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. 3336 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTAR OF ENQUIRIES-3, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S. BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT (BBMP), VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 2. STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001. 4. THE COMMISSIONER, BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE N.R. SQUARE, BANGALORE - 560 002. 5. SRI HARI NARAYANA. R AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, S/O LATE B. CHANDRASEKHAR, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PRESENTLY AS UNDER SECRETARY (KNJNL) WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, ROOM NO.316, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560 001, RESIDING AT NO. 23, ADHITYA LAYOUT, NEAR DECCAN HEIGHTS, RAJARAJESHWARI NAGAR, BENGALURU - 560 098. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJIPURA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.L. SANJEEV, ADVOCATE FOR R4) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTCLES 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 16.07.2019 PASSED IN APPLICATION No-6894/2017 (ANNEXURE-A), IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY. 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 Registrar - respondent Nos.5 and 6 is in Application No.6894/2017, before the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru (‘Tribunal’ for short), are in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution in India, challenging the order dated 16.07.2019. The Tribunal by impugned order allowed the application and set aside the order of entrustment dated 24.06.2017 passed by the first - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 respondent and the articles of charge issued by sixth respondent dated 28.07.2017. 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 was before the Tribunal in Application No.6894/2017 calling in question the order of entrustment at Annexure-A10 and issuance of articles of charge at Annexure-A11 on the premise that the same are issued without looking into the provisions contained under Section 8(1)(d) and Section 9(5)(C) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984'). It is the contention of the applicant before the Tribunal that he has taken action on the complaint as contemplated under Section 321(1), 321(2) and 321(3) of Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (for short 'KMC - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 Act, 1976'). The owner of the building filed a civil suit in OS.No.25307/2012 dated 14.02.2012 and obtained an order of temporary injunction, so also filed an appeal before the appellate authority against the orders issued under the provisions of Section 321 of KMC Act, 1976. In view of issuance of the injunction order by the Civil Court against the demolition order, the applicant and other engineers could not proceed in the matter further. In these circumstances, he contented before the Tribunal that there is no dereliction on his part in taking any action under the provisions of KMC Act, 1976. He has submitted that the Karnataka Lokayukta before entertaining the complaint ought to have consulted Section 8 and 9 of the Act of 1984 and directed the complainant to avail the efficacious and alternative remedy available in the KMC Act, 1976 itself. In these circumstances, the report under Section 12(3) and the order passed by exercising power under Section - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 12(4) suffers from legal infirmity and sought to allow the application. 4. The State Government as well as the Karnataka Lokayukta appeared and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal after considering the material placed on record and the rival submissions of the respective parties, was of the opinion that the report submitted by Karnataka Lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Act of 1984 to the Government and the Government entrusting the matter under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules 1957 exercising power under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984 are not sustainable in law, in view of the provisions contained under Section 8(1)(b) and 9(5)(C) of the Act of 1984. Having held so, proceeded to allow the application and set aside the order of entrustment and issuance of articles of charge, by its order dated - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 16.07.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by the Karnataka Lokayukta and its Registrar, in this petition belatedly by five years seven months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 3 and Sri. B.L.Sanjeev, learned counsel for respondent No.4. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by five years seven 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 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 8. 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. 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 seven months is fatal to the case. On this count - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53192-DB WP No. 3336 of 2025 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.: 4 ct-vn