- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF NOVEMBER, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH WRIT PETITION NO.4979 OF 2020 (GM-RES) BETWEEN: 1. SRI CHANDRA RAMA DEVADIGA S/O RAMA DEVADIGA, AGED ABOUT 42 YEAS, WORKIGN AS ACCOUNTS SUPERINTENDENT, CITY MUNICPAL COUNCIL, PUTTUR-574201. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. SATISH K., ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY IS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU - 560001. 2. THE DIRECTOR DIRECTORATE OF MUNICIPAL ADMINISTRATION, 9TH AND 10TH FLOOR, VISHWERAIAH TOWERS, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BENGALURU - 560001. Digitally signed by ARUNKUMAR M S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 3. THE DEPUTY COMMISSIONER DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT, MANGALURU - 575001. 4. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S. BUILDING BENGALURU - 560 001. 5. SRI. H. MOHAMMED ALI S/O H.H. IBRAHIM HAGI AGED ABOUT 52 YEARS R/AT PANGALAI HOUSE DARBE POST, PUTTUR TALUK DAKSHINA KANNADA DISTRICT - 574 201. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. MAHANTESH SHETTAR, AGA FOR R1 TO R3; SRI. B.B. PATIL, ADVOCATE FOR R4; SRI. B. LETHIF, ADVOCATE FOR R5) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMUGNED ORDER DATED 23.01.2020 PASSED BY THE RESPONDENT NO.2 (ANNEXURE-H) IN SO FAR AS THE PETITIONER IS CONCERNED. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE E.S.INDIRESH ORAL ORDER 1. In this writ petition, the petitioner is assailing the order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-H) passed by respondent No.2, in so far as the petitioner is concerned. 2. The relevant facts for adjudication of this petition are that, the petitioner is working as 'Accounts Superintendent' at City Municipal Council, Puttur. It is to be noted that a complaint dated 28.07.2018 (Annexure-A) has been made by respondent No.5 with regard to misappropriation / corruption in so far as the allegation made in the complaint is concerned. In this regard, the respondent No.2 has passed the impugned order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-H), granting permission for enquiry against the petitioner and being aggrieved by the same, the present writ petition has been filed. 3. Sri. Satish K., learned counsel appearing for the petitioner contended that, the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the complaint at Annexure-A, nor any enquiry has been conducted against the petitioner under Section 17A of - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') and in this regard, learned counsel places reliance on the decision of this Court in the case of SMT. S. LAXMI AND OTHERS Vs. THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE, KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA AND ANOTHER (W.P.No.11933/2023 disposed of on 17.03.2025). By referring to paragraphs 12 and 14 therein, it is argued by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that, without there being any allegation against the petitioner, the permission granted by the State Government is premature and accordingly, sought for interference of this Court. 4. Per contra, learned counsel representing the respondents, sought to justify the impugned permission granted as per the Government Order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-H). 5. In the light of the submissions made by the learned counsel appearing for the parties, on careful consideration of the complaint made by respondent No.5 as per Annexure-A, would indicate that the allegation has been made against two persons and the name of the petitioner does not find a place in the complaint lodged by respondent No.5. It is to be noted from the impugned order at Annexure-H that permission has - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 been granted for conducting enquiry against the petitioner under Section 17A of the Act. In this regard, it is relevant to follow the Judgment of this Court in the case of SMT. S. LAXMI (supra) wherein at paragraph Nos.12 to 14 it is observed as under: "12. The respondent/Lokayukta files its statement of objections and places on record further details about the inquiry conducted, pursuant to receipt of anonymous complaint which is quoted supra. Section 17A approval is granted on 17-06-2023. It reads as follows: “ಪಾವೆ:- ಉೇಖ(1) ರ ಪತದ ಅಪರ ೕ ಮಾೇಶಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ ೋ!ಾಯುಕ, #ೆಂಗಳ'ರು ಇವರು ಜಗಳ'ರು ಪಟ*ಣ ಪಂ,ಾ-.ಯ 2013-18 ೇ ಾನ ಅವ0ಯ ಎ.ಎ2.3 ಅನುಾನ ಮತು 14 ೇ ಹಣ!ಾಸು 6ೕಜೆಯ7ಯ ಸ!ಾರದ ಹಣ ದುರುಪ6ೕಗ8ಾ9ರುವ ಕು:ತು ಜಗಳ':ನ £ÁUÀjPÀgÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè JA§ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ zÀÆgÀfð ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥Éưøï :ೕ;ಕರು ೋ!ಾಯುಕ, ಾವಣ<ೆ=ೆ >ೆ ರವರು ಪ:?ೕಲೆ ನAೆ3 ಆCಾD3ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳE FೕೊGೕಟ!ೆH ಾIೕJಾ9ರುವKದು ಕಂಡುಬಂDರುವKದ:ಂದ ಆ=ೋ¦vÀ ೌಕರರ OರುದP ಕಲಂ 17(ಎ) ಭಷ*,ಾರ ಪ.ಬಂಧಕ !ಾTU 1988 (.ದುUಪ7 !ಾTU-2018) :ೕJಾV CಾಥXಕ O,ಾರYೆ/ತZೆ !ೈ<ೊಳ\ಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ* ಸ;ಮ Cಾ0!ಾರDಂದ ಪ]8ಾನುಮ. ೊರ^3!ೊಡಲು ?_ಾರಸು` aಾ7ರುವ ಉೇಖ(2) ಮತು ಉೇಖ(3) ರ ತZಾ - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 ವರDಯನುG ಲಗ.ಸುJಾ ದೂರು ಅ>ಯನ ಎದುರುಾರ=ಾದ ?ೕ >.ಎ.ಸು=ೇಂದ, ಮುZಾV0!ಾ:ಗಳE, ಪಟ*ಣ ಪಂ,ಾ-., ಜಗಳ'ರು ಾವಣ<ೆ=ೆ >ೆ ಇವರ OರುದPದ ಆCಾದೆಗಳ ಬ<ೆb O,ಾರYೆ/ತZೆ !ೈ<ೊಳ\ಲು ಕಲA 17(ಎ) ರ :ೕJಾV ಪ]8ಾನುಮ.<ಾ9 ಸ;ಮ Cಾ0!ಾರವನುG !ೋರಾ9ೆ. ಪಾ8ೆಯ Oವ:3ದ ಅಂಶಗಳನುG ಪ=ಾಮ?ಸಾ9 ಾಗೂ ಲಗ.ಸಾದ ತZಾ ವರD ಮತು ಪ]ರಕ ಾಖಾ.ಗಳನುG ಪ:?ೕಸಾ9 ಜಗಳ'ರು ಪಟ*ಣ ಪಂ,ಾ-.ಯ ನAೆDರುವ ಅವVವಾರಗಳ ಮುZಾV0!ಾ:ಗcಾ9 ಕತವV ವd3ದU ?ೕ >.ಎ.ಸು=ೇಂದ, ಾ ಸಹ!ಾರ ಅeವೃDP ಅ0!ಾ: ಾಗೂ aಾ=ಾgಾ0!ಾ:, ಸಹ!ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಾಯಕ ಬಂಧಕರ ಕiೇ:, ಾವಣ<ೆ=ೆ - ಉಪOjಾಗ, ಾವಣ<ೆ=ೆ ಇವರು ಒಟು* lತ ಅಂಾಜು 50,94,547/- ರೂ.ಗಳ ಅವVವಾರ ನAೆ3 ವರD3ರುವKದನುG ಪ:ಗm3, ಪಕರಣದ ಸJಾVಸತVJೆಯನುG .nಯಲು .ೕaಾ3, ಯaಾನುಾರ ತZೆ ನAೆಸುವ ಅವಶVಕJೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂDರುವKದ:ಂದ ಈ !ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆೇಶ. -: ಆಆಆಆ ೇ ೇ ೇ ೇ ಶಶಶಶ :- ಕಕಕಕ.ಸಂ ಸಂ ಸಂ ಸಂ:ಆp ಆp ಆp ಆp3ಎ 3ಎ 3ಎ 3ಎ/3ಬqಂD 3ಬqಂD 3ಬqಂD 3ಬqಂD-4/04/2023-24 Dಾಂಕ Dಾಂಕ Dಾಂಕ Dಾಂಕ:17-06-2023 ಪಾವೆಯ Oವ:3ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ dೆGೆಯ ?ೕ >.ಎ.ಸು=ೇಂದ, ಸಹ!ಾರ ಅeವೃDP ಅ0!ಾ:/ aಾ=ಾgಾ0!ಾ:, ಸಹ!ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸಾಯಕ ಬಂಧಕರ ಕiೇ:, ಾವಣ<ೆ=ೆ ಉಪOjಾಗ, ಾವಣ<ೆ=ೆ ಇವರ OರುದP ಜಗಳ':ನ ಾಗ:ಕರು aಾ7ರುವ ಆCಾದೆಗಳ ಬ<ೆb ಕಲಂ-17(ಎ) ಭrಾ*,ಾರ ಪ.ಬಂಧಕ !ಾTU - 1 1988 - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 (.ದುUಪ7 !ಾTU-2018) ರನsಯ O,ಾರYೆ/ತZೆ !ೈ<ೊಳ\ಲು ಸ;ಮ ?ಸು Cಾ0!ಾ: !ಾVಪ*t Aಾ|| !ೆ.=ಾuೇಂದ ಆದ ಾನು ಅನುಮ.ಯನುG ೕ7ರುJೇೆ. ಈ ಆೇಶವನುG ನನG ಸd ಾಗೂ ಕiೇ: lಹ:ನ7ಯ D: 17-06-2023 ರಂದು ೊರ73ೆ. ¸À»/- (!ಾVಪ*t Aಾ|| !ೆ.=ಾuೇಂದ,) ಸಹ!ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಬಂಧಕರು ಕಾಟಕ =ಾಜV, #ೆಂಗಳ'ರು.” A close examination reveals that the respondent/Lokayukta acting upon the anonymous complaint embarked upon elaborate enquiry, summoning officers, collecting documents and building a dossier, all before seeking an approval under Section 17A of the Act. To describe such fact finding as ‘preliminary’ would be to trivialize the legislative intent behind Section 17A. 13. The defence of the learned counsel for the Lokayukta is that, it is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry in terms of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of LALITA KUMARI supra. The Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI has held as follows: “…. …. …. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information - 8 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” (Emphasis supplied) The judgment is of the year 2014. At the time when the Apex Court had rendered its decision, Section 17A of the Act was not in the statute book. For the first time Section 17A is introduced by way of an amendment on 26-07-2018. In terms of the amendment or in terms of Section 17A, for an inquiry, enquiry or investigation approval under - 9 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 Section 17A is mandatory. Even if it is construed that what the Lokayukta has done is a preliminary enquiry, it could not have been done without two instances taking place – one, approval under Section 17A of the Act, and two, the registration of a FIR. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, what the Lokayukta has done, can be considered to be some sort of a preliminary enquiry. It is a detailed enquiry or detailed investigation as found in Section 17A of the Act. If that had to be done, prior approval was imperative. 14. Therefore, all the acts done prior to Section 17A approval becomes null and void, as in the considered view of the Court it does not meet the necessities of Section 17A, as the entire edifice of enquiry erected prior to 17- 06-2023 the day on which approval under Section 17A is granted, is built on procedural quicksand and cannot be sustained. This, however, would not mean that the petitioners can walk away evading investigation. If there are allegations of corruption against them, investigation in the least, is a must. The veil of approval under Section 17A is now in place. Therefore, by declaring that what is conducted prior to the grant of approval being null and void, I deem it appropriate to reserve liberty to the respondents to now investigate into - 10 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 the matter, in a manner known to law, and take the issue to its logical conclusion, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order." 6. Taking into consideration the declaration of law made by this Court in the above writ petition, as well as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of YASHWANT SINHA AND OTHERS Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION THROUGH ITS DIRECTOR AND ANOTHER reported in (2020) 2 SCC 338, particularly with regard to paragraph Nos.117 and 118, I am of the view that, the permission granted by respondent No.2 as per Annexure-H is unsustainable in law and therefore, same is required to be set aside only in so far as the petitioner herein is concerned. In that view of the matter, I find force in the submission made by the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner that the impugned action as per Annexure-H against the petitioner is not sustainable in law. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is allowed. The order dated 23.01.2020 (Annexure-H) passed by respondent No.2, sanctioning permission to conduct enquiry as - 11 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:49292 WP No. 4979 of 2020 against the petitioner herein, is hereby quashed. However, it is open for the respondent - authorities to take recourse to action pursuant to the allegation as against the persons stated in the complaint at Annexure-A is concerned. 8. Pending application in I.A.3/2020 is disposed of as not surviving for consideration. SD/- (E.S.INDIRESH) JUDGE sac List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25