- 1 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31470-DB WP No. 30893 of 2024 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 24TH DAY OF JUNE, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH RAI K WRIT PETITION NO. 30893 OF 2024 (S-KSAT) BETWEEN: THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S. BUILDINGS, BENGALURU-560 001. …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-560 001. 2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, URBAN DEVELOPMENT DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001. 3. SRI. S.N.MAHESHWARAPPA, S/O LATE S.C. NANJUNDAPPA, AGED ABOUT 66 YEARS, OCC: ASSISTANT EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, RAJAJINAGAR SUB-DIVISION, BBMP, BENGALURU, Digitally signed by PANKAJA S Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA - 2 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31470-DB WP No. 30893 of 2024 R/AT NO.1027, 5TH MAIN, 3RD STAGE, 3RD BLOCK, BASAVESHWARANAGAR, BENGALURU-560 079. 4. SRI. BASAVARAJA C. NAGAPPA S/O. LATE. SRI. NAGAPPA, AGED ABOUT 43 YEARS, ASSISTANT ENGINEER, OFFICE OF THE EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, ROAD INFRASTRUCTURE, ANNEXE BUILDING, 2ND FLOOR, DASARAHALLI DIVISION, BBMP, R/AT NO. 665/G, FIRST FLOOR, 4TH MAIN, SRINAGAR, BANGALORE -560 050. …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.3449/2018 AND 3500/2018 DATED 27.01.2020 (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 RAJESH RAI K - 3 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31470-DB WP No. 30893 of 2024 ORAL ORDER (PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.G.PANDIT) The petitioner-Karnataka Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court questioning the order dated 27.01.2020, by which, respondent No.3's application is allowed by quashing order of entrustment dated 08.01.2019 as well as articles of charge dated 01.03.2019. 2. Heard learned counsel Sri Joseph Anthony for the petitioner and learned Additional Government Advocate Sri V. Shivareddy for respondent Nos.1 and 2. 3. The impugned order is dated 27.01.2020, whereas the present writ petition is filed before this Court on 15.11.2024 i.e., after more than four and half years from the date of impugned order passed by the Tribunal. No averment is made with regard to delay in preferring the writ petition in the entire writ petition. Though no limitation is prescribed for invoking writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India, an aggrieved person shall invoke the jurisdiction under Article 226 of Constitution of India within a reasonable time. In the instant case, four and half years period cannot be a - 4 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31470-DB WP No. 30893 of 2024 reasonable period to approach this Court, that too the institution like the petitioner. The Hon'ble Apex Court in CHENNAI METROPOLITAN WATER SUPPLY & SEWERAGE BOARD AND OTHERS V. T.T. MURALI BABU, reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108 has held in paragraph No.16 as follows: “16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, “procrastination is the greatest thief of time” and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis.” 4. Moreover, respondent No.3 in the year 2019 was aged 59 years and as on this day, he is retired from service and - 5 - HC-KAR NC: 2026:KHC:31470-DB WP No. 30893 of 2024 he is in the evening of his life. Thus, it may not be appropriate at this stage to issue notice and drag respondent Nos.3 and 4 to the present litigation. 5. The writ petition stands rejected only on the ground of delay and latches. SD/- (S.G.PANDIT) JUDGE SD/- (RAJESH RAI K) JUDGE HKV List No.: 1 Sl No.: 17