IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 18^TH 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. 17094 OF 2025 (S-KSAT)

BETWEEN:

1. THE KARNATAKA UPA LOKAYUKTA, M S BUILDING, DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD, BANGALORE-560 001, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR.

2. THE ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES 10 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA, M.S. BUILDING, BENGALURU-560 001.

…PETITIONERS Digitally signed by VINUTHA B (BY SRI JOSEPH ANTHONY, ADVOCATE)

S Location: Hi gh AND: Court of Karnataka

1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA, REPRESENTED BY ITS ADDITIONAL CHIEF SECRETARY, WATER TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, VIKASA SOUDHA, BANGALORE - 560001.

2. SRI. T.C. SOMASHEKARAPPA, S/O. CHANNAVEERAPPA, AGED ABOUT 62 YEARS, RETIRED EXECUTIVE ENGINEER, WATER RESOURCE DEPARTMENT, No.5676/11, 6^TH CROSS, VIDYANAGAR, DAVANGERE -577005.

…RESPONDENTS (BY SRI V. SHIVAREDDY, AGA FOR R1)

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES

226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASHING THE ORDER DATED 03.11.2020 PASSED BY THE KSAT A.No-3601/2020 (ANNEXURE-A).

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 S.G.PANDIT)

The Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta represented by its Registrar is before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India questioning the order dated 03.11.2020 in Application No.3601/2020 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru [for short 'Tribunal'], whereunder the application of respondent No.2 herein stood allowed quashing the order of entrustment of enquiry dated 01.02.2020 (Annexure-A4) and Articles of Charge dated

30.06.2020 (Annexure-A6).

2. Heard Sri Joseph Anthony, leaned counsel for the petitioners-Karnataka Upa-Lokayukta and Sri V. Shivareddy, learned Additional Government Advocate for respondent No.1.

Perused the writ petition papers.

3. The above writ petition is liable to be rejected solely on the ground of delay and laches on the part of the petitioners- Lokayukta. The impugned order passed by the Tribunal is dated 03.11.2020 and the present writ petition is filed before this Court on 12.06.2025 after a lapse of more than 05 years. No explanation whatsoever is forthcoming from the petitioners for the delay in preferring the writ petition.

4. The Hon'ble Apex Court in catena of decisions has held that for a petition under Articles 226 of the Constitution of India, though limitation is not applicable, it has to be filed within a reasonable time. In the present case, the 05 years period for filing the writ petition is not a reasonable period. The Hon'ble Apex Court in Mrinmoy Maity v. Chhanda Koley and Others [2024 SCC OnLine SC 551], while examining the question of what constitutes a reasonable period for invoking the jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution, has, at paragraphs 9 to 13, held as follows:

“9. Having heard rival contentions raised and on perusal of the facts obtained in the present case, we are of the considered view that writ petitioner ought to have been non-suited or in other words writ petition ought to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and latches itself. An applicant who approaches the court belatedly or in other words sleeps over his rights for a considerable period of time, wakes up from his deep slumber ought not to be granted the extraordinary relief by the writ courts. This Court time and again has held that delay defeats equity. Delay or latches is one of the factors which should be born in mind by the High Court while exercising discretionary powers under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. In a given case, the High Court may refuse to invoke its extraordinary powers if laxity on the part of the applicant to assert his right has allowed the cause of action to drift away and attempts are made subsequently to rekindle the lapsed cause of action.

10. The discreti