IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 20TH DAY OF AUGUST, 2019 :PRESENT:
THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE L.NARAYANA SWAMY AND THE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE R.DEVDAS WRIT PETITION NO.46437 OF 2017 (S-KAT) BETWEEN SRI UMESH K AGED ABOUT 39 YEARS, S/O LATE KARIYAPPA OCC: SECRETARY GRADE-I BYRAMANGALA GRAMA PANCHAYATH RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT R/A ITTIMADU, BIDADI HOBLI, RAMANAGARA TALUK RAMANAGARA DISTRICT (BY SRI NAGARAJAPPA A, ADVOCATE) AND 1. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REP BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATH RAJ DEPARTMENT, M.S.BUILDING BANGALORE-560 001 2. THE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDINGS BENGALURU-560 001 REP BY ITS REGISTAR (BY SMT M S PRATHIMA, AGA FOR R1 ... PETITIONER ... RESPONDENTS SRI VENKATESH S ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R2) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 & 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE IMPUGNED ORDER DATED 5.7.2017 PASSED IN A.NO.3526/2017 AT ANNEX-B PASSED BY THE HON'BLE KARNATAKA STATE ADMINISTRATIVE TRIBUNAL, BENGALURU AND ETC.
THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR DICTATING ORDERS THIS DAY, DEVDAS J, MADE THE FOLLOWING:
ORDER The petitioner is before this Court with the following prayers:
(a) Issue an order of direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the impugned order dated 05.07.2017 passed in A.No.3526/2017 (Annexure-B) passed by the Hon’ble Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, Bengaluru;
(b) Issue an order of direction or a writ in the nature of Certiorari quashing the Govt. Order bearing No.GraAaPa/385/ GraPamKa/2017 dated 17.05.2017 (Annexure-A10 in Annexure-A) passed by the Respondent No.1;
(c) Pass such other order or direction deemed just and expedient in the circumstances of the case including the costs.
2. Sri A.Nagarajappa, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner would submit that the enquiry initiated against the petitioner is required to be set aside on the ground that Section 9(5)(c) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, provides that where an alternative remedy is available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case, it would be proper to avail such remedies, then the Lokayukta or the Upa- lokayukta, as the case may be may refuse to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or allegation.
3. On the basis of a complaint made by one B.L.Harsha, alleging that the Executive Engineer Sri R.Raghuraman, was causing inconvenience to the complainant since the Executive Engineer was trying to form a road on and over the property belonging to the complainant i.e, property bearing Kanishmari No.613/29A/7 situated in Byramangala, Bidadi Hobli, Ramanagara Taluk, the respondent-Lokayukta registered the complaint and commenced investigation. During the course of the investigation, it was found that it is because the petitioner herein issued two endorsements, one dated 09.09.2015 and the other dated 30.03.2016, diametrically opposite to the other endorsement, it was found he was responsible for the action of the Executive Engineer in trying to form the road. However, the submission of the learned counsel for the petitioner is that since an alternative remedy is provided under the provisions of the Karnataka Panchayath Raj Act, which is now known as the Karnataka Gram Swaraj and Panchayat Raj Act, 1993, namely Section 269 which would provide for an appeal on an original order, the respondents could not have proceeded with the investigation against the writ petitioner. It is also submitted that two original suits are pending consideration before the Civil Court and therefore that is the another ground to preclude the Lokayukta from proceeding the investigation against the writ petitioner.
4. Per contra, Sri Venkatesh.S.Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondent - Lokayukta would submit that Section 9(5) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, would only enable the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta to cease to continue the investigation if it is found that an alternative remedy is available to the complainant. However, it is submitted that the remedy that is suggested by the learned counsel is only civil remedy open for complainant, while the complainant made specific allegation of misconduct against the Executive Engineer and during the process of investigation, it was found that the basis for the Executive Engineer to initiate the proceedings was the two endorsements issued by the writ petitioner herein.
5. Heard the learned counsels and perused the writ papers.
6. Having gone through the writ papers, we find that the writ petitioner, at the first instance where the Assistant Executive Engineer had sought for certain information on the basis of the representation made by the complainant Sri Harsha, was called upon to give information as to whether the property in question was within Gramtana limits or not. By issuing a communication dated 09.09.2015, the petitioner herein informed the Assistant Executive Engineer that the property in question is not found in the records of the Gramtana. It is on the basis of this endorsement or communication dated 09.09.2015 issued by the petitioner herein that the Executive Engineer/Assistant Executive Engineer proceeded to form a road on the land in question. It is clear that the petitioner herein by issuing another endorsement dated 30.03.2016, has stated that on going through the demand register, it was found that the complainant Sri Harsha has indeed purchased the property from the previous owner and his name has been entered in the demand register and therefore the property was well within the jurisdiction of gramtana. It is therefore clear that it is because of the action of the petitioner in not looking into the records and giving a wrong information to the Assistant Executive Engineer, the Engineering department has proceeded to form road on the property in question.
7. When a specific allegation has been made against the Officials that without looking into the records they have proceeded to form a road on private land belonging to a individual, the Upa-lokayukta was justified in proceeding against the writ petitioner. At this stage, the prayer made by the petitioner seeking to quash the impugned order dated 17.05.2017 passed by the respondent No.1 - State Government in entrusting the matter to the Upa-lokayukta cannot be interfered with. Consequently, the order passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.3526/2017 rejecting the application made by the petitioner herein also cannot be interfered with.
8. We have gone through the order passed in W.P.Nos.25078-80/2016, in the case of Subhindra A. Gumaste and others /vs./ The State of Karnataka and others, which was decided on 15.07.2016 by a co- ordinate bench, cited by the learned counsel for petitioner and find that the fact matrix in that matter is totally different from the one on hand. Similarly, the decision of the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal, at Bangalore, in Application No.6545/2016 in the case of Dr.B.V.Vasanthi Amar /v.s/State of Karnataka and others, decided on 03.01.2017 also has no application to the facts of this case. Moreover, the charge memo was issued based on the investigation undertaken by the Upa-lokayukta. Therefore, the submission that an alternative remedy is available to the complainant is irrelevant and requires to be rejected.
9. For the reasons stated above, we proceed to dismiss the writ petition as one without merit. The observations made herein above shall not prejudice the case of the petitioner before the Upa-lokayukta in the enquiry.
SD/- JUDGE KLY/ SD/- JUDGE