- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37120-DB WA No. 50 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF SEPTEMBER, 2025 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT APPEAL NO. 50 OF 2024 (S-DE) BETWEEN: T NARAYANAPPA S/O LATE SRI THIMMAIAH AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS EARLIER WORKING AS BRANCH MANAGER STATE BANK OF MYSORE (ERSTWHILE) R/AT VENKATADRI NILAYA 4TH LINK ROAD, 6TH CROSS VIJAYANAGAR, TUMKUR …APPELLANT (BY SRI. NAGENDRA NAIK R, ADVOCATE) AND: STATE BANK OF INDIA (ERSTWHILE STATE BANK OF MYSORE) REPRESENTED BY ITS GENERAL MANAGER HEAD OFFICE, NO.65, LHO BUILDING ST MARKS ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001 …RESPONDENT (BY SRI. T.P MUTHANNA, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS HON'BLE COURT IN WP No. 15027/2021 (S-DE) DATED 01.09.2023 AND ETC. Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37120-DB WA No. 50 of 2024 THIS APPEAL, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS DAY, JUDGMENT WAS DELIVERED THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K ORAL JUDGMENT (PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN) Heard the learned counsel appearing for the appellant as well as the learned counsel appearing for the respondent. 2. The learned counsel for the appellant submits that the dismissal of the writ petition on the ground of delay and laches is factually incorrect, in view of the fact that the appellant could not have challenged the dismissal, since there was a conviction recorded against him in a criminal case on the same facts in the year 2010. 3. It is submitted that it is only in January, 2020, that the criminal appeal filed by the appellant against the conviction was allowed and it was only thereafter that he could have challenged the order of dismissal passed on 30.08.2007. 4. We notice that the learned Single Judge has considered the specific contentions raised by the writ petitioner - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37120-DB WA No. 50 of 2024 with regard to the delay at paragraph No.6 of the judgment under appeal, which reads as follows: "6. Having regard to the fact that the order of dismissal was confirmed in the review petition in the year 2008, the petitioner was expected to file a writ petition within a reasonable time. Admittedly, till the year 2010 the petitioner had not been convicted and there was no impediment for him to challenge the order of dismissal passed against him. The petitioner was acquitted in appeal on 14.1.2020 and nearly a year thereafter on 23 December 2020, he has preferred this writ petition. It is obvious that the petitioner was awaiting the decision in appeal and he has taken a chance to prefer this writ petition only after he was acquitted in January 2020. In my view, there is absolutely no cause, much less, sufficient cause, to explain the inordinate delay of nearly 12 years in filing the writ petition." 5. It is clear that order of dismissal which was recorded on 20.07.2007 was confirmed in appeal on 30.08.2007. A review petition filed against the order in appeal was also dismissed on 12.03.2008. The writ petition was filed only on 23.12.2020. It is an admitted fact that the petitioner was convicted by the Trial Court in 2010 and had been acquitted in appeal on 14.01.2020. However, in view of the fact that the dismissal order was on 20.07.2007 and was not on the basis of the conviction by the Trial Court, we are of the opinion that the contention of the appellant that he had to wait till an - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:37120-DB WA No. 50 of 2024 order was passed in appeal on 14.01.2020 to challenge the dismissal, is without merits. 6. The learned Single Judge has also directed that in case the petitioner makes a request before the Bank, the same will be considered in accordance with law. 7. In the above view of the matter, we are of the opinion that there is no ground made out in interfering with the judgment of the learned Single Judge in this Intra Court appeal. The appeal fails and accordingly, the same is dismissed. Pending Interlocutory Applications, if any, shall stand disposed of. SD/- (ANU SIVARAMAN) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 23