- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 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. 26210 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR MS BUILDING, VIKASA SOUDHA BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, DEPARTMENT OF FOOD, CIVIL SUPPLIES, CONSUMER AFFAIRS AND LEGAL METROLOGY, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. SRI. M. S. RAMAIAH, S/O. LATE SREERANGAIAH, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, 4TH CIRCLE, MODI HOSPITAL ROAD, NEAR SHANKAR MUTT, BANGALORE - 560 079. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 3. SRI. M. S. KUMARA, S/O. LATE SHETTY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, INSPECTION SQUAD -1 NO. 1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, P. B. NO. 175 BANGALORE - 560 052. 4. SRI. B. N. RAJEEV, S/O. LATE G. NARASIMHAMURTHY, AGED ABOUT 44 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY MANDYA - 571 401. 5. SMT. SARALA NAIR, W/O. PRAKASH KUMAR. N., AGED ABOUT 41 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, MYSORE. 6. SRI. RAMAKRISHNAIAH, S/O. LATE CHIKKA KAVALLAPPA AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY GOWRIBDANUR ROAD, CHIKKABALLAPUR. 7. SMT. SEEMA. K W/O. I. F. MAGI AGED ABOUT 40 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 LEGAL METROLOGY, CIRCLE-2 MINERVA CIRCLE, BANGALORE. 8. SRI. MADHUKAR. R. GHODKE, S/O. RAJARAM GHODKE, AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER, LEGAL METROLOGY, HUBLI CIRCLE. 9. SRI. RAFEEKASAB LADAJI, S/O. NABISAB, AGED ABOUT 36 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, KALBURGI CIRCLE, KALBURGI. 10. SRI. M. N. HIPPARAGI, S/O. LATE NAGAPPA HIPPARAGI, AGED ABOUT 58 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, KAJSHINA KANNADA 2ND CIRCLE, UDUPI. 11. SRI. S. R. MALI, S/O. RAMU MALI, AGED ABOUT 46 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, BAGALKOT. 12. SRI. MOHD. ABID ALI, S/O. LATE MOHD. MAQSOOD ALI, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS, - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, RAICHUR. 13. SRI. G. THIMMARAYAPPA, S/O. LATE GOVINDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 56 YEARS WORKING AS ASSISTANT CONTROLLER LEGAL METROLOGY, INSPECTION SQUAD-3, NO. 1, ALI ASKAR ROAD, P. B. NO. 175, BANGALORE - 560 052. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.V. SHIVA REDDY, AGA FOR R1) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED AUGUST 14, 2019 IN APPLICATION BEARING Nos.10634-10645/2016 AS ISSUED BY THE KSAT, 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 - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The second respondent - Karnataka Lokayukta in Application Nos.10631-10633/2016 and Application Nos.10634-10645/2016, is in this petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India challenging the common order dated 14.08.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by order impugned allowed all the applications, and set aside the order dated 18.10.2016 passed by first respondent vide Annexure-A14. 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 Nos.1 to 12 were before the Tribunal in Application Nos.10634-10645/2016, calling in question the order of entrustment under Rule 14(A) of Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 short 'CCA Rules, 1957') dated 18.10.2016 passed by the first respondent (Annexure-A14), contending that the order of entrustment passed by the first respondent is without application of mind, as there is a short consideration of material placed before it, vide Annexure- A1, A2, A6 and A7. 4. The respondent No.2-Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal, upon consideration of rival submissions and the material placed on record, formed an opinion that there is non consideration of material/documents placed at Annexure-A1, A2, A6 and A7 by the Government while accepting the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984') and prior to passing any order, exercising power under Section 12(4) of the Act of 1984, entrusting the enquiry under Rule 14-A of CCA Rules, 1957, relying on its earlier decision which is upheld by this Court in the case of H.N.NIRANJAN VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA reported in 2017 (2) AKR 463, allowed the application and set aside the order of entrustment, by its order dated 14.08.2019. It is - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 this order passed by the Tribunal is called in question by second respondent-Lokayukta in this petition belatedly by six years. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner and Sri.V.Shiva Reddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ petition papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by six years, Mr.Anthony is unable to place any suggestible/palpable explanation for the delay caused in filing the petition belatedly by five years. 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. - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53198-DB WP No. 26210 of 2025 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 six years 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.: 7; ct-vn