WP/30893/2024 of THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA Vs THE STATE OF KARNATAKA on 24 June 2026

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

HC-KAR

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

HC-KAR

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