- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 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. 3736 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR M.S BUILDING, BANGALORE - 560 001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI. JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY, DEPARTMENT OF URBAN DEVELOPMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560 001. Digitally Signed by REKHA R Location : High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 2. SRI. H.K. KRISHNEGOWDA, S/O KOTEGOWDA, AGED ABOUT 61 YEARS, WORKING AS CHIEF ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE CENTRAL MECHANICAL ORGANISATION, ANAND RAO CIRCLE, BANGALORE - 560 009. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI. VIKAS ROJIPURA, AGA FOR R1) THIS WP IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI, OR ANY OTHER WRIT, ORDER, OR DIRECTION IN THE NATURE OF A WRIT THEREBY QUASHING THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 28.06.2019 IN APPLICATION BEARING NO.73/2017 (ANNEXURE-A). 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF) The Karnataka Lokayukta - respondent No.2 in Application No.73/2017 is in petition under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, calling in question the Order dated 28.06.2019 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal at Bengaluru, (‘Tribunal’ for short). The Tribunal by the impugned order stated supra allowed the application and set-aside the show cause notice dated 07.12.2016 issued by first respondent (Annexure-A9) and the articles of charge dated 10.06.2014 issued by respondent No.2 (Annexure-A5). 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:- - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 The applicant was before the Tribunal in Application No.73/2017 calling in question the impugned show cause notice issued against him by the first respondent dated 07.12.2016 and the articles of charge dated 10.06.2014 on the premise that the work was completed in 2004 itself and the complaint filed belatedly by six years, is barred by time within the provisions of Section 8(2)(c) & (d) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short 'Act of 1984). He has further contended that the Karnataka Lokayukta has failed to consider this aspect of the matter, as such entire enquiry held is vitiated and the show-cause notice issued on the basis of enquiry report is not sustainable in law and sought to allow the application. 4. The respondent State as well as Karnataka Lokayukta appeared before the Tribunal and opposed the application by filing statement of objection. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 5. The Tribunal after considering the entire material placed before it and hearing the rival submissions is of the opinion that the work was completed in the year 2004 itself and when there is documentary evidence to that effect, the applicant along with others are justified in making submission that the act complained is of the year 2004 and the complaint is filed in the year 2010 is barred by limitation as per Section 8 of the Act of 1984 and allowed the application and set-aside the order/ proceedings impugned in the application, by its order passed dated 28.06.2019. It is this order passed by the Tribunal, that is called in question by Karnataka Lokayukta belatedly by four years seven months. 6. Heard Sri.Joseph Anthony, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri.Vikas Rojipura., learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1. Perused the entire writ papers. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 7. On a query regarding the explanation for the delay caused in filing the writ petition belatedly by four years seven 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 reason to condone the - 7 - HC-KAR NC: 2025:KHC:53194-DB WP No. 3736 of 2024 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 seven months is fatal to the case. On this count alone, the writ petition is liable to be rejected and 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 TKN List No.: 3 Sl No.: 1 ct-vn