[Cites 13, Cited by 0]
Karnataka High Court
Sri. K Ranganath vs The Registerar on 1 December, 2025
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU
DATED THIS THE 1ST DAY OF DECEMBER, 2025
PRESENT
THE HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
AND
THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
WRIT APPEAL NO.570 OF 2023 (GM-KLA)
BETWEEN:
SRI. K. RANGANATH
S/O KENCHAPPA
OCCUPATION: PREVIOUSLY WORKED
AS ASSISTANT COMMISSIONER
BENGALURU NORTH SUB-DIVISION
BENGALURU-560 009
AGED ABOUT 51 YEARS
R/AT. 11TH CROSS, CHAITANYA NAGARA
DATTATREYA CHOULTRY ROAD
DODDABALLAPURA-561 203
BENGALURU RURAL DISTRICT
...APPELLANT
(BY SRI. PRASANNA B.R., ADVOCATE)
AND:
1. THE REGISTERAR
KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTHA
M.S. BUILDINGS
2
DR. B.R. AMBEDKAR ROAD
BENGALURU-560 001
2. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA
REP. BY ITS SECRETARY
DEPARTMENT OF PERSONNEL
AND ADMINISTRATIVE REFORMS
M.S. BUILDING
BENGALURU-560 001
...RESPONDENTS
(BY SRI. VENKATESH S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R1;
SMT. MAMATHA SHETTY, AGA FOR R2)
THIS WRIT APPEAL IS FILED U/S 4 OF THE KARNATAKA
HIGH COURT ACT PRAYING TO SET ASIDE THE IMPUGNED
ORDER DATED 13.03.2023 IN W.P.No.54012/2018 (GM-KLA)
PASSED BY THE LEARNED SINGLE JUDGE OF THIS COURT,
WHICH HAS BEEN CONFIRMED BY THE ORDER DATED
21.04.2023 IN R.P.No.203/2023 AND TO DISMISS THE WRIT
PETITION.
THIS WRIT APPEAL HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED
FOR JUDGMENT ON 14.11.2025 AND COMING ON FOR
PRONOUNCEMENT OF JUDGMENT THIS DAY, ANU SIVARAMAN
J., PRONOUNCED THE FOLLOWING:
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN
and
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL
3
CAV JUDGMENT
(PER: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE ANU SIVARAMAN)
This writ appeal is filed challenging the Order dated
13.03.2023 of the learned Single Judge in Writ Petition
No.54012/2018 (GM-KLA).
2. Heard Shri. Prasanna B.R, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant, Shri Venkatesh S. Arabatti,
learned standing counsel for Lokayukta-respondent No.1 and
Smt. Mamatha Shetty, learned Additional Government
Advocate for State/respondent No.2.
3. The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta had filed
the writ petition in Writ Petition No.54012/2018, challenging
Annexure-A, Government Order No.DPAR 103 KEV 2016,
dated 22.03.2018 passed by the Government of Karnataka,
by which the report under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act, 1984, recommending Departmental Enquiry
under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services
(Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957 ('KCS (CCA)
Rules' for short) against the appellant herein was rejected.
4. It was the case of the petitioner that a complaint
was lodged by one Srinivas against the appellant herein
alleging dereliction of duty. An investigation was conducted
under Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act. Finding
sufficient material, a report dated 14.06.2016 under Section
12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act was forwarded to the
first respondent recommending departmental enquiry. By
Annexure-A order, the Government rejected the report,
relying on an opinion of the Revenue Department and an
Informal Note of the Revenue Department dated
15.05.2017.
5. The learned Single Judge found that the reliance
on extraneous materials was completely unjustified. It was
noticed that the complaint against respondent No.2 was not
a grievance but an allegation under Section 2(2) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act. It was found that once the
Lokayukta had conducted an enquiry, after putting appellant
on notice and considering the relevant aspects, it was not
open to the Government to rely on extraneous material to
reject the recommendation.
6. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
submits that the specific contention of the appellant was
that the allegation in the complaint was with regard to
change of khata. The contention that complainant had an
effective alternative remedy under the provisions of the
Karnataka Land Reforms Act, 1964, and that there could
have been no enquiry under Section 9 in view of Section
8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, was not considered
by the learned Single Judge.
7. It is further contended that the Karnataka
Lokayukta would not be "a person aggrieved" by the refusal
on the part of the Government to act on the
recommendation of the Lokayukta and the writ petition itself
ought to have been dismissed.
8. The learned counsel appearing for the appellant
has relied on the following decisions:-
• The Karnataka Lokayukta v. The State of
Karnataka, by order dated 15.04.2025 passed in
W.P. No.2981/2023 (S-KSAT);
• M/s. Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd.
v. State of Karnataka and Others, reported in
ILR 2015 KAR 5591;
• Sri. Subhindra A Gumaste and Others v. The
State of Karnataka and Others, by Order dated
15.07.2016 passed in W.P.No.25078-80/2016
(GM-KLA);
• The Registrar v. Dr. Dakshayini K., by order
dated 07.06.2021 passed in
W.P.No.58804/2016 (S-KAT); and
• The Registrar v. The Principal Secretary to
Government, by order dated 25.01.2022 passed
in W.P.No.12733 of 2021 (GM-KLA).
9. The learned standing counsel appearing for the
Lokayukta, on the other hand, contends that the purpose of
Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act has been
specifically considered by a Co-equal Bench of this Court. It
was found that it was only where an inter se dispute
between two persons where alternative remedy is available
in the normal law that the bar under Section 8(1)(b) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act would apply. It is further
contended that Co-equal Benches of this Court had
considered the issue on maintainability of a Writ Petition
filed by the Lokayukta and has clearly held that Lokayukta
would have the locus standi to challenge the orders passed
by the Government refusing to initiate action against a
delinquent Officer when the recommendation by the
Lokayukta was positive in nature. Further, it is contended
that the Government is not sitting in appeal over a report
under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, and
can consider the matter only on the basis of the materials
placed before it in the report and cannot make a roving
enquiry on its own.
10. We have considered the contentions advanced.
We immediately notice that the question before this Court is
whether the Lokayukta would be a person aggrieved has
been considered by several Benches of this Court. It has
been clearly held that in the scheme of the Lokayukta Act
and the purposes for which the authority has been
constituted, the Lokayukta would definitely have the locus
standi to challenge orders of the Government refusing to
initiate disciplinary proceedings where the report
recommending such action has been submitted by the
Lokayukta. In The Karnataka Lokayukta v. The State of
Karnataka and another, by order dated 15.04.2025
passed in W.P.No.2981 of 2023 (S-KSAT) and
connected matters, the Division Bench of this Court,
observed in paragraph No.5 as follows:-
"5. x x x x x We hasten to add that should
the Government let off delinquent employees, the
Lokayukta will have the competence and locus to lay
a challenge to such decisions of the Government if
grounds do avail in law for the same." x x x x x
11. Further, in The Hon'ble Additional Registrar v. Sri
Nanjunda Shetty and another, by order dated 21.09.2024
passed in W.P.No.46781 of 2016 and connected matters, the
Court remarked that the question of standing must be
assessed on a case-by-case basis as it necessarily depends
on the specific facts and circumstances of each case. The
judgment of the learned Single Judge which is relied on by
the appellant is in respect of locus standi is therefore no
longer good law. A co-equal Bench of this Court in Writ
Petition No.105477 of 2023 decided on 3rd September,
2024, considered the question of locus standi of the
Lokayukta with reference to the decisions on the point and
came to the conclusion that the Lokayukta, which is a
statutory authority formed in terms of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act would indeed have the locus standi to
challenge the orders passed in applications which are
essentially adverse to public interest.
12. Moreover, the situation contemplated in Section
8(1)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act is one where the
complainant has an efficacious remedy by way of an appeal,
revision, review or other proceedings to address his
grievance and this provision has no application in the facts
of the present case. Section 8(1)(b) of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act provides as follows:-
"8. Matters not subject to investigation.-
(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or
an Upa-Lokayukta shall not conduct any
investigation under this Act in the case of a
complaint involving a grievance in respect of any
action.-
(a) xxxxx
(b) if the complainant has or had, any
remedy by way of appeal revision,
review or other proceedings before any
Tribunal, [Court Officer or other
authority and has not availed of the
same.]"
13. Firstly, the said provision is applicable only in the
case of a "grievance" as defined in Section 2(8) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act. The present case involves an
"allegation" as defined in Section 2(2) of the Karnataka
Lokayukta Act. The bar under Section 8(2)(b) of the
Karnataka Lokayukta Act would not be applicable in a case
where the complaint discloses an allegation against a public
servant.
14. We also notice that all the decisions relied by the
appellant are matters where the complaint involved a
grievance and the complainant had efficacious alternate
remedies.
15. We notice that the appellant had also attempted a
review before the learned Single Judge, which was also
rejected by order dated 21.04.2023 in R.P.No.203/2023.
16. Having considered the contentions advanced on
both sides, we are of the opinion that there is no error in the
finding of the learned Single Judge. The appeal therefore
fails and the same shall stand dismissed.
Pending interlocutory applications shall also stand
disposed of.
Sd/-
(ANU SIVARAMAN)
JUDGE
Sd/-
(VIJAYKUMAR A. PATIL)
JUDGE
cp*.
