- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47029-DB WP No. 17150 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. 17150 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, MS BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD BANGALORE - 560001. REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, 4TH FLOOR, M.S. BUILDING, BANGALORE- 560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND - WATER TRANSPORTS LTD., VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47029-DB WP No. 17150 of 2025 3. SRI. D.S. HAREESHA S/O. SRI. D.N. SRINIVAS MURTHY AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS WORKING AS SUPERINTENDENT ENGINEER YETTINAHOLE PROJECT, CIRCLE-1 HEMAVATHI CAMP, KUNIGAL ROAD, TUMKURU. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1 AND R2) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO a) ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 28/05/2021, PASSED BY THE KSAT AT BENGALURU IN APPLICATION NO.6942/2018. 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 - respondent No.3 in Application No.6942/2018 is in petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 28.05.2021 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47029-DB WP No. 17150 of 2025 the impugned order allowed the application and set-aside the order of entrustment dated 27.03.2018 and remitted the matter to the first respondent to consider the report of the Karnataka Lokayukta afresh and pass appropriate orders keeping in mind the law laid down by this Court in the case of Sri.Sanjeev Kumar Vs. The State of Karnataka and others in W.P.No.205398/2018 dated 24.02.2020. 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 approached the Tribunal calling in question the order of entrustment on the ground of non- application of mind by the Government while considering the report forwarded by the Karnataka Lokayukta. 4. The respondent State as well as Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal on notice and opposed the application. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47029-DB WP No. 17150 of 2025 5. The Tribunal upon consideration of the entire material placed before it and the rival submissions of learned counsel for the parties is of the opinion that the Government while entrusting the matter to the Karnataka Lokayukta exercising power under Section 12(4) of Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 has not properly considered the material placed before it by applying its independent mind as such the order of entrustment is contrary to law. Relying on the decision stated in paragraph No.10 of the order, the Tribunal proceeded to allow the application and set-aside the order of entrustment impugned in the application, by its order dated 28.05.2021. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years one month. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondents 1 & 2. Perused the entire writ papers. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47029-DB WP No. 17150 of 2025 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years one month, 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 shall 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. 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 - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:47029-DB WP No. 17150 of 2025 cannot be permitted to be reopened if there is unreasonable lapse of time. The unexplained delay of four years one month is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and accordingly, rejected. Sd/- (B M SHYAM PRASAD) JUDGE Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE TKN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 5