THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA vs MIRZA AEJAZ BAIG

- 1 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024




IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA


KALABURAGI BENCH

TH
DATED THIS THE 6 DAY OF OCTOBER, 2026

PRESENT

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI

AND

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

WRIT PETITION NO.201557 OF 2024 (S-KSAT)


BETWEEN:

1. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGALURU-560 001,
REPRESENTED BY
ITS REGISTRAR.

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

(BY SRI. SUBHASH MALLAPUR, ADVOCATE)

AND:

1. MIRZA AEJAZ BAIG S/O MIRZA GAYAS BAIG,
AGE: 50 YEARS, OCC: GROUP-D EMPLOYEE,
RANGE FOREST OFFICE, AFZALPUR,
DISTRICT KALABURAGI-585 301,
RESIDING AT MAIN ROAD, AFZALPUR,
AT AND POST AFZALPUR,
DISTRICT GULBARGA-585 301.








Digitally
signed by
SHIVALEELA
D UDAGI
Location:
HIGH COURT
OF
KARNATAKA

- 2 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024



2. STATE OF KARNATAKA,
REP. BY THE PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
TO GOVERNMENT, DEPARTMENT OF
FOREST, ECOLOGY AND ENVIRONMENT,
M.S. BUILDING,
BENGLAURU-560 001.

…RESPONDENTS

(BY SMT. MAYA T.R., AGA FOR R2)


THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226
AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, PRAYING TO
A) ISSUE A WRIT IN NATURE OF CERTIORARI AND QUASH THE
ORDER DATED 14.06.2021 PASSED BY THE KARNATAKA STATE
ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL KALABURAGI IN APPLICATION
NO.930/2018 WIDE ANNEXURE-B. B) ISSUE ANY OTHER WRIT
ORDER OR DIRECTION AS THIS HONOURABLE COURT DEEMS
FIT UNDER THE CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE CASE IN THE
INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND ETC.

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR ORDERS, THIS DAY,
ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO

- 3 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024


ORAL ORDER
(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S. KINAGI)

The petitioner has filed this writ petition challenging the
order dated 14.06.2021 passed in Application No.930/2018 by
the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Kalaburagi (for
short, ‘the Tribunal’).


2. Respondent No.1 challenged the order dated
21.09.2017 passed by the Respondent No.2 and articles of
charge dated 16.11.2017 issued by the petitioner approached
the Tribunal.


3. The Tribunal, after hearing the learned counsel for
the parties, allowed the application and quashed the impugned
Annexures-A8, A9 by order dated 14.06.2021. The petitioner
aggrieved by the same, filed this writ petition.


4. Heard learned counsel for the petitioners and
learned Additional Government Advocate.


5. Learned Spl.PP for the petitioners submits that the
Tribunal, without considering the defence raised by the

- 4 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024


petitioners, has passed the impugned order. Hence, on these
grounds, he prays to allow the writ petition.


6. Perused the records.


7. The Tribunal has passed an order on 14.06.2021
and the writ petition is filed on 13.02.2024. There is a delay of
more than 2 ½ years.


8. From the perusal of the memorandum of writ
petition, the petitioners have not explained the delay in
approaching this Court. Thus, there is an inordinate delay in
filing the writ petition.


9. In view of the proposition laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water
Supply and Sewerage Board and others vs. T.T.Murali
Babu reported in (2014) 4 SCC 108, at para 16-17 has held
as under:
“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

- 5 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024


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 scrutinize 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.
In the case at hand, though there has been four years’
delay in approaching the court, yet the writ court chose
not to address the same. It is the duty of the court to
scrutinize whether such enormous delay is to be ignored
without any justification. That apart, in the present case,
such belated approach gains more significance as the
respondent-employee being absolutely careless to his
duty and nurturing a lackadaisical attitude to the
responsibility had remained unauthorisedly absent on the
pretext of some kind of ill health. We repeat at the cost
of repetition that remaining innocuously oblivious to such
delay does not foster the cause of justice. On the
contrary, it brings in injustice, for it is likely to affect
others. Such delay may have impact on others’ ripened
rights and may unnecessarily drag others into litigation
which in acceptable realm of probability, may have been
treated to have attained finality. A court is not expected
to give indulgence to such indolent persons - who
compete with ‘Kumbhakarna’ or for that matter ‘Rip Van
Winkle’. In our considered opinion, such delay does not
deserve any indulgence and on the said ground alone the
writ court should have thrown the petition overboard at
the very threshold.
17. Having dealt with the doctrine of delay and laches,
we shall presently proceed to deal with the doctrine of
proportionality which has been taken recourse to by the
High Court regard being had to the obtaining factual
matrix. We think it appropriate to refer to some of the

- 6 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024


authorities which have been placed reliance upon by the
High Court.”


10. In view of the latest judgment rendered by the
Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Shivamma (dead) by
Lrs., vs. Karnataka Housing Board & Ors. reported in
(2025) SCC OnLine SC 1969; and the judgment of the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Union of India & Ors. vs.
Simon Topno in SLP (c) Diary No.64341/2021 DD
15.12.2025, wherein the Hon'ble Apex Court referring to the
judgment rendered in Shivamma's case ( supra ), held that
delay in filing the petition/appeal by the State or its
instrumentality is not to be condoned by showing extra leniency
for lethargic and negligent attitude of their officers would tend
to cover a own periods of limitation having little regard for the
limitation period specified in the statues or in the Rules.


11. Considering the proposition laid down by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the cases referred to supra , we find that
the petitioners have failed to explain the delay and has not
shown sufficient cause in preferring the writ petition at belated

- 7 -
HC-KAR
NC: 2026:KHC-K:10886-DB
WP No. 201557 of 2024


CNR: KAHC030013962024


stage. Therefore, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed on
the ground of delay and laches.


12. In view of the above discussions, we proceed to
pass the following:
ORDER
The writ petition is dismissed .

In view of the dismissal of writ petition, pending IAs, if
any, do not survive for consideration and accordingly, disposed
of.


Sd/-
(ASHOK S. KINAGI)
JUDGE


Sd/-
(SUBRAMANYA RANGARAO)
JUDGE



SDU
LIST NO.: 1 SL NO.: 1
CT: AK