- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 19TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION NO. 530 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M. S. BUILDING, BENGALURU 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY TO GOVERNMENT, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 3. SRI N.R. MUNIYAPPA AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS, S/O LATE RANGAPPA, Digitally signed by VALLI MARIMUTHU Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, MAHADEVAPURA DIVISION BRUHAT BENGALURU MAHANAGARA PALIKE, BENGALURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 27/06/2019 IN THE APPLICATION No.4085/2018 (ANNEXURE-A). THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner, and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2. 2. The Karnataka Lokayukta is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, challenging the order dated 27.06.2019 in Application No. 4085/2018 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Tribunal’) - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 3. A complaint was filed against Respondent No.3 by Smt. V. Bharathi, alleging inaction with respect to unauthorized construction. The petitioner submitted a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, on 13.01.2017, recommending the initiation of disciplinary proceedings and entrustment of the enquiry. Respondent No. 1, by order dated 16.02.2017, entrusted the investigation to the petitioner. The petitioner nominated an Enquiry Officer on 22.02.2017, and the Articles of Charge were issued on 22.03.2017. Respondent No. 3 preferred an application challenging the order of entrustment and the Articles of Charge. 3.1 The Tribunal, in the impugned order, held that the controversy pertains to the violation of the sanctioned plan, and that action has already been taken by the Executive Engineer, BBMP, Cottonpet, Bengaluru, under Section 321 of the Karnataka Municipal Corporations Act, 1976 (hereinafter “KMC Act”), against the owner for contravening the building bye-laws. Subsequently, a confirmation order under Section 321(2) of the KMC Act was issued. Accordingly, the allegation of inaction against the owner of the building cannot be - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 sustained. The Tribunal further held that, in view of the remedy available under the KMC Act, the proceedings under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act are not maintainable. 4. Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner, submits that the alleged inaction regarding the violation of the sanctioned plan was duly investigated and that a case for disciplinary enquiry against Respondent No. 3 was made out. He contends that subsequent action taken after the complaint cannot absolve Respondent No. 3 from any dereliction of duty. 4.1. Insofar as the delay in filing the writ petition is concerned, learned counsel submits that the same was on account of certain technical and procedural constraints. 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for Respondent Nos. 1 and 2 and supports the petitioner. 6. Before adverting to the merits of the case, it is necessary to consider the delay in filing the writ petition. On 18.08.2025, learned counsel for the petitioner was granted one week’s time to explain the delay. Accordingly, the affidavit of the Chairman, - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 Legal Cell, and Assistant Registrar – Legal Opinion-3, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bengaluru, has been filed, explaining the reasons for the delay. Paragraphs 3 and 4 of the affidavit read as follows: "3. I state that the present matter was initially entrusted to Sri. Ashwin Halady, Learned Counsel, pursuant to the order dated December 15, 2021, for the purpose of filing a Writ Petition before this Hon'ble Court. However, due to certain technical and procedural constraints, the matter could not be effective pursued or filed by the said counsel, resulting in a delay in the initiation of proceedings. 4. I state that, accordingly, the matter was re- allotted to Sri Joseph Anthony, Learned Counsel, vide order dated February 27, 2023. I further state that the petitioner, being a statutory institution, is bound to follow prescribed procedural formalities and internal approvals, which contributed to the delay in initiating the present Petition before the Hon'ble Court." 7. From a reading of the affidavit, no satisfactory reasons have been furnished to explain the delay. The order of the Tribunal is dated 27.06.2019, whereas the matter was entrusted to counsel for filing the writ petition only on 15.12.2021. No explanation has been provided for the delay - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 during this period. Similarly, no justification is offered for the further delay until the writ petition was presented on 03.01.2024. We are not persuaded by the submission that the delay was caused due to certain technical and procedural constraints. It is further submitted that the petitioner, being a statutory institution, is bound to follow prescribed procedural formalities and internal approvals, which allegedly contributed to the delay in initiating the present petition. While it is true that there is no prescribed limitation for filing a writ petition, the right to file such petition must be exercised within a reasonable time. A delay of exceeding four years cannot, under any circumstances, be regarded as reasonable. 8. The petitioner, being a statutory institution, cannot claim to stand on a different footing as compared with individual litigants. The law applicable to ordinary litigants applies equally to statutory institutions. The petitioner, notwithstanding its statutory status, cannot seek separate or preferential treatment before this Court. We, therefore, take strong exception to the reasons assigned in the affidavit of the Chairman, Legal Cell, and the Assistant Registrar, which seek to justify the delay on - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37713-DB WP No. 530 of 2024 the ground of exceptional treatment due to the statutory nature of the petitioner. 9. Considering the date of the Tribunal’s order, i.e., 27.06.2019, and the date of filing of the writ petition, i.e., 03.01.2024, we find no justification for the delay in presenting the petition. The writ petition is, therefore, liable to be rejected on the ground of delay and laches. Since we have not examined the contentions relating to the maintainability of proceedings before the petitioner, the same are kept open. The rejection of this petition shall not be treated as confirmation of the findings of the Tribunal. Accordingly, the writ petition is rejected. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE MV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 9