- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7064-DB WP No. 14103 of 2023 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 6TH 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. 14103 OF 2023 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: 1. THE HON'BLE UPA LOKAYUKTA, REP. BY ITS REGISTER, M.S. BUILDING DR. B R AMBEDKAR VEEDI, BENGALURU 560001. …PETITIONER (BY SRI K. PRASANNA SHETTY, ADVOCATE) AND: 1. SRI H B THIPPESWAMY, S/O SR. BASAPPA, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, WORKING AS ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, ON DEPUTATION TO LAKES DEVELOPMENT, BENGALURU. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. Digitally signed by VINUTHA B S Location: High Court of Karnataka - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7064-DB WP No. 14103 of 2023 3. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 4. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS ADDL. CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BENGALURU 560 001. 5. THE CHIEF ENGINEER, COMMUNICATION AND BUILDING (SOUTH), PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT, K. R. CIRCLE, BENGALURU 560 001. …RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R2 TO R4) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING SET/ASIDE THE ORDER DATED 17.01.2023 PASSED IN A.No-1450/2021 PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KAT BENGALURU (ANNEXURE-B). 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 - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7064-DB WP No. 14103 of 2023 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. V. ARAVIND) Heard Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 2. This writ petition is filed by the Lokayukta, calling in question the order dated 17.01.2023 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru (for short, ‘the Tribunal’), in Application No.1450/2021. 3. Respondent No.1 preferred an application before the Tribunal challenging the order dated 15.03.2021 (Annexure-A7), whereby the enquiry was entrusted to the petitioner. By the impugned order, the Tribunal set aside the order of entrustment and remitted the matter to the respondent-Authorities for consideration of the entire material on record and to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. The said order is assailed by the petitioner in the present writ petition. - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7064-DB WP No. 14103 of 2023 4. Sri K. Prasanna Shetty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, submits that the recommendation was made on the basis of the material available on record. It is contended that the Tribunal, without considering the said material, has set aside the order of entrustment. It is further submitted that the report submitted under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, has not been taken into consideration by the Tribunal. On these grounds, he prays for setting aside the impugned order passed by the Tribunal. 5. Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate, appears for respondent Nos.2 to 4. 6. Having considered the submissions of the learned counsel appearing for the parties, we notice that the Tribunal has set aside the order of entrustment dated 15.03.2021 and remitted the matter to the respondent-Authorities to consider the entire material on record, including the report submitted by the Lokayukta, and to take a fresh decision in accordance with law. - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:7064-DB WP No. 14103 of 2023 7. The order of entrustment was passed by the respondent-Authorities. The respondent-Authorities are not aggrieved by the order setting aside the entrustment. In the absence of any challenge by the respondent-Authorities, it is not open to the petitioner alone to assail the order setting aside the entrustment. Moreover, no prejudice is caused to the petitioner, as the Tribunal has merely set aside the order and remitted the matter to the respondents for fresh consideration. Since the interests of both the petitioner and the respondent- Authorities are duly safeguarded by the order of remand, we are not inclined to entertain this writ petition. 8. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. Sd/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE Sd/- (K. V. ARAVIND) JUDGE DDU List No.: 1 Sl No.: 22