Karnataka High Court
Sri.Hanumantha Rao vs The State Of Karnataka on 28 March, 2022
Bench: Alok Aradhe, S Vishwajith Shetty
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 28TH DAY OF MARCH 2022
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S. VISHWAJITH SHETTY
W.A. No.759 OF 2021 (S-RES)
IN
W.P. No.45108 OF 2017 (S-RES)
BETWEEN:
SRI. HANUMANTHA RAO
S/O MADDEPPA KURKOTI
AGED ABOUT 50 YEARS
OCC: METER READER
NO.33/11, K.V. MUSS
CHITTAPUR, GULBARGA DIST.
R/AT. H.NO.C-54
DOS HOUSING COLONY
INDIRANGARA II STAGE
DOMMALURU
BANGALORE-560071.
... APPELLANT
(BY MR. M.B. CHANDRACHOODA, ADV., FOR
MR. SHANTA KUMAR K.C. ADV.,)
AND:
1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
VIKASA SOUDHA
BANGALORE-560001.
2
2. THE GENERAL MANAGER / MANAGING DIRECTOR
(ADMINISTRATION AND HRD)
KARNATAKA POWER TRANSMISSION CORPORATION
LIMITED KPTCL, CAUVERY BHAVAN
BANGALORE 560009.
3. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDING
VIDHAANA VEEDHI
BANGALORE
REP. BY ITS REGISTRAR.
... RESPONDENTS
(BY MRS .VANI H, AGA)
---
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE ORDER OF THE
LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE DATED 10.06.2021 IN WP
NO.45108/2017.
THIS W.A. COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING, THIS
DAY, ALOK ARADHE J., DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
JUDGMENT
In this intra court appeal, the appellant has assailed the
validity of the order dated 10.06.2021 passed by the learned
Single Judge by which writ petition preferred by the appellant
has been dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.
2. The appellant was employed as a meter reader in
Karnataka Power Transmission Corporation Limited
(hereinafter referred to as the 'Corporation' for short). The
appellant was trapped on 17.07.1992 by demanding and
accepting illegal gratification. Thereupon, a departmental
enquiry was initiated against the appellant and after the
departmental enquiry, a penalty of compulsory retirement
was imposed on appellant by an order dated 24.02.2007. The
appellant thereafter sought review of the order. The
application for review filed by the appellant was rejected on
26.07.2007. The appellant thereafter filed a writ petition
after a delay of more than 10 years on 03.10.2017, in which
challenge was made to the order imposing the penalty of
compulsory retirement as well as the order passed on the
application for review. The learned Single Judge by an order
dated 10.06.2021 has refused to entertain the writ petition
on the ground of delay and laches. In the aforesaid factual
background, this appeal has been filed.
3. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
after rejection of the application for review filed by the
appellant, a representation dated 30.12.2011 was submitted,
which was referred to the Managing Director of the
Corporation for reconsideration. However, the aforesaid
representation is pending till today. Therefore, the petition
ought not to have been dismissed on the ground of delay and
laches.
4. We have considered the submission made by
learned counsel for the appellant and have perused the
record. Admittedly, after the review application came to be
rejected on 26.07.2007, the writ petition was filed after 10
years on 03.10.2017. No explanation has been furnished on
behalf of the appellant before the learned Single Judge for
approaching this Court after an inordinate delay of 10 years.
It is well settled in law that the discretion of this Court under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India is discretionary in
nature and the same would not be invoked to examine stale
and belated claims. The learned Single Judge for the reasons
assigned in the order has rightly declined to entertain the
writ petition, which was filed by the appellant after a period
of 10 years.
For the aforementioned reasons, we do not find any
merit in this appeal. The same fails and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/-
JUDGE
Sd/-
JUDGE
SS
