Karnataka High Court
WP/25839/2025 of H.T. GNANESH Vs THE REGISTER on 27 July 2026
CNR: KAHC010556872025 NC: 2026:KHC:38672-DB WP No. 25839 of 2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026 PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH AND THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF WRIT PETITION NO. 25839 OF 2025 (GM-KLA) BETWEEN: 1. H.T. GNANESH
HC-KAR
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 27TH DAY OF JULY, 2026
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
WRIT PETITION NO. 25839 OF 2025 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
1.
H.T. GNANESH
S/O LATE H M THIMMAPPAIAH
AGED ABOUT 53 YEARS
R/AT D NO 1205
RAVINDRANAGAR
HASSAN 573201
…PETITIONER
(BY SRI. GIRISH B BALADARE.,ADVOCATE)
AND:
1.
THE REGISTER
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA
M S BUILDING
DR B R AMBEDKAR VEEDHI
BENGALURU 560 001
2.
GANAPATHI SHASHTRI
TAHASILDAR
TALUK OFFICER
CHIKKABALLAPURATALUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
3.
MALLIKA R R
SHERISTEDAR
TALUK OFFICE
Digitally
signed by
VASANTHA
KUMARY B K
Location:
HIGH
COURT OF
KARNATAKA
HC-KAR
CHIKKABALLAPURATALUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
4.
ANJANAPPA
CASE WORKER RECORD ROOM
CHIKKABALLAPUR A TALUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
5.
VENU
CASE WORKER RECORD ROOM
CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
6.
MUNIKARISHNA
CASE WORKER RECORD ROOM
CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
7.
KANTHA B M
SURVEY SUPERVISOR
OFFICE OF ADLR
CHIKKABALLAPURA TLAUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
8.
MANJU
RECORD ROOM KEEPER
TALUK OFFICE
CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT 562101
9.
SHIVANNA
D GROUP EMPLOYEE
TALUK OFFICE
CHIKKABALALPURA TALUK
AND DISTRICT-562101
…RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH.S.ARBATTI., ADVOCATE FOR R1)
THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
HC-KAR
ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE
WRIT DIRECTIONS TO QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-C THAT IS
THE
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
ORDER
DATED 06.05.2025 PASSED BY THE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 BANGALORE IN BEARING No.COMPLAINT/ UPALOK/BD-4942/2022/ARE-17 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.
THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF
ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)
This petition is by the complainant calling in question the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Upalokayukta- 1, Bengaluru in Complaint/Lokayukta/BD-4942/2022/ARE-
17.
2. The facts germane to this petition are as under: 2.1 The complainant, claiming to be the person authorized to represent one Prabhakar and others in relation to certain RTC entries, filed a complaint
HC-KAR
before the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the revenue officials demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.5,000/- and that, despite payment of the amount, they failed to take any action on the application filed by him.
2.2. The complaint came to be registered in Complaint No Complaint/Lokayukta/BD- 4942/2022/ARE-17. During the course of inquiry, the Upalokayukta noticed that the complainant was allegedly representing himself as an authorized representative of Prabhakar and others without producing any document evidencing such authorization. The Upalokayukta also considered the fact of a criminal case registered against the complaint in C.C.No.285/2023 before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura. The Upalokayukta noted that the complainant remained absent despite being called out several
HC-KAR
times even though the notice was issued via WhatsApp and therefore, closed the complaint.
3. Heard Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Lokayukta.
4. Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and only on the premise that he has not been authorized by the legal representatives of Prabhakar to represent them. He further submits that though a criminal case was registered against the complainant alleging impersonation as an official of the Lokayukta, deterring the public servants, however, till the guilt is proved, he cannot be treated as an accused for the alleged offence.
5. We have considered the arguments and gone through the entire writ petition papers.
HC-KAR
6. Sri Venkatesh S Arbatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lokayukta submits that as per the proviso to Section 9(6) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 before concluding or closing a complaint, the complainant must be duly notified or called upon to appear before the authority, which has been done in the present case.
7. There is prima facie case made against the complainant in the above criminal case filed against him for impersonating as an official of Lokayukta.
8. There is no provision shown that prior notice be given to the complainant before closing the complaint instituted by him. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition constitutes abuse of process of law and Court.
9. Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner into the ARMED FORCES BATTLE CASUALTIES WELFARE FUND
HC-KAR
(AFBCWF) A/C No.90552010165915 CANARA BANK, IFSC CODE: CNRB0019055, within a period of three weeks, else the concerned Deputy Commissioner shall issue a certificate of recovery in accordance with law, recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue, deposit it to the concerned account and intimate compliance to this Court.
Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE
Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE
RKA CT:SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2