- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 13TH 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. 9146 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE REGISTRAR KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING. BANGALORE - 560 001. 2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES-11 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S. BUILDING BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONERS (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY.,ADVOCATE) AND: 1. STATE OF KARNATAKA REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY REVENUE DEPARTMENT M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 2. THE ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER HARAPANAHALLI SUB DIVISION HARAPANAHALLI DAVANGERE DISTRICT- 583 131. 3. MR. S CHANDRASHEKAR S/O LATE S. VEERANA Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 48 YEARS WORKING AS DEPUTY TAHSILDAR NADA KACHERI, CHIGATERI HOBLI HARAPANAHALLI TALUK R/A. HARAPANAHALLI DAVANAGERE -583 131. 4. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAVANAGERE - 577 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI.VIKAS ROJI PURA FOR R1 R2 AND R4.,ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 09.09.2020 BY THE HONBLE KSAT IN A.No- 316/2018. 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 Additional Registrar of Enquiries - respondent Nos.2 and 3 in Application Nos.315-316/2018 before the Tribunal is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 question the Order dated 11.09.2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the applications quashing the order impugned dated 04.09.2017, 20.09.2017 and 23.09.2017 and articles of charge dated 27.12.2017 issued by third respondent (Annexure-A9). 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:- Both the applicants were working under the Revenue Department at the relevant point of time. One Sri.Karadi Sannabadakappa S/o.Karadi Nanjappa, Yellapura Village, Gourihalli Post, Harappanahalli Taluk, Davanagere District filed a complaint against the applicants and other officials with the Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta on 09.12.2014, alleging that the applicants are not entering his name in the RTC with respect to the land he has purchased. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 Pursuant to the complaint, explanations have been called from the applicants and other delinquent Government officials. The applicants submitted their reply stating that they have not committed any misconduct and sought to close the complaint. The Karnataka Lokayukta not satisfied with the reply submitted by the applicants and others forwarded a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'the Act of 1984) to the first respondent and requested to entrust departmental enquiry. The first respondent upon the report, called for a report from the Deputy Commissioner, Davanagere and passed an order entrusting the enquiry with the Karnataka Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Service (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (‘CCA Rules, 1957’ for short). In pursuance of the entrustment order, articles of charge has been issued against the applicants. Aggrieved by the order of entrustment and issuance of articles of charge, the applicants were before the Tribunal in Application Nos.315-316/2018. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 4. The respondent State as well as Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application. 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed before it and hearing the rival submissions of learned counsel for the respective parties, formed an opinion that there is no dereliction of duty attributable to the applicants. The Tribunal further observed that the Government has not applied its mind while entrusting the enquiry without consulting the provisions contained under Karnataka Land Revenue Act, 1964 which provides an alternative and efficacious remedy and placing reliance on the Judgment of the Co-ordinate bench of this Court in SUBHINDRA A GUMASTE AND OTEHRS VS. STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS in W.P.No.25078 TO 78/2016, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set- aside the order impugned therein, by its order dated 11.09.2020. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years six months. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1, 2 and 4. Perused the entire writ papers. 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years six 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 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. 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 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:46582-DB WP No. 9146 of 2025 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 four years six months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and is accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 1