Failure to file a rejoinder despite sufficient opportunity does not invalidate closure of a Lokayukta complaint.

The petitioner lodged a complaint alleging that Agriculture Department officials misappropriated Government subsidy funds and cheated farmers.

Following an inquiry, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Karnataka Lokayukta, reported that the allegations were not proved.

The petitioner was served with notice to file a rejoinder and given time until 28 December 2021, but did not file one by that date.

He submitted a request for more time on 6 January 2022.

The Additional Registrar declined the request and ordered closure of the complaint under Section 9(5)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

The petitioner challenged that decision and sought an extension of time to file a rejoinder

Section 9(5)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, was applied as the statutory basis for closing the complaint

The Court considered whether the petitioner had been afforded a sufficient opportunity to respond to the inquiry report, applying the principle that a denial of a fair opportunity may implicate natural justice

The Court found that notice to file a rejoinder had been served and that the petitioner had been granted time until 28 December 2021.

He neither filed a rejoinder by that date nor sought an extension until 6 January 2022, and thereafter made no further effort to have the matter postponed.

In those circumstances, the Court held that sufficient time had been afforded and found no error in the decision to close the complaint

The writ petition was dismissed