- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10537-DB WP No. 1724 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18TH DAY OF FEBRUARY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND WRIT PETITION No. 1724 OF 2025 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS, PORTS AND INLAND WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU-560001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560001. 3. MR. NARAYINI, S/O URUTIRANGAIAH, Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10537-DB WP No. 1724 of 2025 AGED ABOUT 55 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT ENGINEER, RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BRUHAT BENGALORE MAHANAGAR PALIKE, BENGALORE, RESIDING AT No.791/6, 1ST FLOOR, 12TH MAIN, 5TH A CROSS, MEI LAYOUT, BENGALURU-560073. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1 & R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU IN APPLICATION No.6223/2019 DATED 20/02/2020 (ANNEXURE- B) BY ISSUING APPROPRIATE WRIT, ORDER OR DIRECTION. THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER: CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri. Joseph Anthomy, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri. V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 2. This appeal is filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta, calling in question the order dated 20.02.2020 passed by the - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10537-DB WP No. 1724 of 2025 Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, “the Tribunal”) in Application No.6223/2019. 2.1 Respondent No.3 had approached the Tribunal seeking quashing of Annexure-A10 dated 08.01.2019, being the order of entrustment issued under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 (for short, “the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957”), and the Articles of Charge dated 01.03.2019 (Annexure-A11). 2.2 Respondent No.3 contended that he belongs to the Public Works, Ports and Inland Water Transport Department. While he was working as an Assistant Engineer in Rajajinagar Sub-Division, BBMP, a complaint dated 26.09.2015 was lodged before the petitioner–Lokayukta. Pursuant thereto, a report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 was submitted. Thereafter, the Government passed an order of entrustment under Rule 14-A of the KCS (CCA) Rules, 1957, followed by issuance of Articles of Charge. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10537-DB WP No. 1724 of 2025 2.3 The Tribunal, for the reasons assigned in the impugned order, allowed the application and set aside the order of entrustment as well as the Articles of Charge. 3. Sri Joseph Anthony, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that no prejudice has been caused to respondent No.3 on account of entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta and the issuance of Articles of Charge. It is contended that respondent No.3 has been afforded sufficient opportunity to put forth his defence in the course of the enquiry. 3.1 It is further submitted that respondent No.3 failed to prevent the construction of a building raised in violation of the sanctioned plan and the applicable bye-laws. According to the learned counsel, the Tribunal, without adverting to the aforesaid serious dereliction of duty, has committed an error in setting aside the order of entrustment as well as the Articles of Charge. 4. Sri.V. Shivareddy, learned AGA appears for respondent Nos.1 and 2. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10537-DB WP No. 1724 of 2025 5. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel for the petitioner and the learned Additional Government Advocate, and upon perusal of the writ petition papers, we notice that the order of the Tribunal is dated 20.02.2020. The said order was received in the office of the petitioner on 21.03.2020. However, the present writ petition has been filed only on 20.01.2025, nearly five years thereafter. 6. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming in the pleadings with regard to the inordinate delay in approaching this Court. Even during the course of hearing, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner was unable to offer any satisfactory explanation for the delay. 7. It is no doubt true that there is no prescribed period of limitation for filing a writ petition. However, it is a settled position of law that, in the absence of a statutory period of limitation, a petition or appeal must nevertheless be filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, we find that a delay of nearly five years in approaching this Court cannot, by any stretch of imagination, be construed as reasonable. - 6 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:10537-DB WP No. 1724 of 2025 8. In the light of the enormous and unexplained delay in presenting the writ petition, we are not inclined to entertain the same on that ground alone. Accordingly, we hold that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on the ground of delay and laches. Hence, the writ petition stands dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE VBS List No.: 1 Sl No.: 30