H.T. Gnanesh v. The Register

ORDER DATED

06.05.2025 PASSED BY THE UPALOKAYUKTA-1 BANGALORE IN BEARING No.COMPLAINT/ UPALOK/BD-4942/2022/ARE-17 IN THE INTEREST OF JUSTICE AND EQUITY.

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

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE D K SINGH and HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF

ORAL ORDER

(PER: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.M.NADAF)

This petition is by the complainant calling in question the order dated 06.05.2025 passed by the Upalokayukta-1, Bengaluru in Complaint/Lokayukta/BD-4942/2022/ARE-

17.

¶2The facts germane to this petition are as under:

2.1 The complainant, claiming to be the person authorized to represent one Prabhakar and others in relation to certain RTC entries, filed a complaint

before the Karnataka Lokayukta alleging that the revenue officials demanded illegal gratification of a sum of Rs.5,000/- and that, despite payment of the amount, they failed to take any action on the application filed by him.

2.2. The complaint came to be registered in Complaint Complaint/Lokayukta/BD-4942/2022/ARE-17. During the course of inquiry, the Upalokayukta noticed that the complainant was allegedly representing himself as an authorized representative of Prabhakar and others without producing any document evidencing such authorization. The Upalokayukta also considered the fact of a criminal case registered against the complaint in C.C.No.285/2023 before the Court of the Principal Civil Judge and CJM, Chikkaballapura. The Upalokayukta noted that the complainant remained absent despite being called out several

times even though the notice was issued via WhatsApp and therefore, closed the complaint.

¶3Heard Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner and Sri Venkatesh S Arabatti, learned counsel for respondent No.1-Lokayukta.

¶4Sri Girish B Baladare, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order was passed without providing an opportunity of hearing to the complainant and only on the premise that he has not been authorized by the legal representatives of Prabhakar to represent them. He further submits that though a criminal case was registered against the complainant alleging impersonation as an official of the Lokayukta, deterring the public servants, however, till the guilt is proved, he cannot be treated as an accused for the alleged offence.

¶5We have considered the arguments and gone through the entire writ petition papers.

¶6Sri Venkatesh S Arbatti, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Lokayukta submits that as per the proviso to Section 9(6) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 before concluding or closing a complaint, the complainant must be duly notified or called upon to appear before the authority, which has been done in the present case.

¶7There is prima facie case made against the complainant in the above criminal case filed against him for impersonating as an official of Lokayukta.

¶8There is no provision shown that prior notice be given to the complainant before closing the complaint instituted by him. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered view that the present writ petition constitutes abuse of process of law and Court.

¶9Accordingly, we dismiss the writ petition with costs of Rs.50,000/- to be deposited by the petitioner into the ARMED FORCES BATTLE CASUALTIES WELFARE FUND

(AFBCWF) A/C No.90552010165915 CANARA BANK, IFSC CODE: CNRB0019055, within a period of three weeks, else the concerned Deputy Commissioner shall issue a certificate of recovery in accordance with law, recover the said amount as arrears of land revenue, deposit it to the concerned account and intimate compliance to this Court.

Sd/- (D K SINGH) JUDGE

Sd/- (T.M.NADAF) JUDGE

RKA CT:SN List No.: 2 Sl No.: 2

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:38672-DB( WP(No.(25839(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010556872025( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(27 (DAY(OF(JULY,(2026( PRESENT( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(D(K(SINGH( AND(( THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(T.M.NADAF( WRIT(PETITION(NO.(25839(OF(2025((GM-KLA)( BETWEEN:(( ( 1., H.T.,GNANESH, S/O,LATE,H,M,THIMMAPPAIAH, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS, R/AT,D,NO,1205, RAVINDRANAGAR, HASSAN,573201, …PETITIONER, , (BY,SRI.,GIRISH,B,BALADARE.,ADVOCATE), , AND:( ( Digitally signedtiby 1., THE,REGISTER, VASANTHA KARNATAKA,LOKAYUKTA, KUMARY0B0K M,S,BUILDING, Location: DR,B,R,AMBEDKAR,VEEDHI,HIGH COURT0OF BENGALURU,560,001, KARNATAKA , 2., GANAPATHI,SHASHTRI, TAHASILDAR, TALUK,OFFICER, CHIKKABALLAPURATALUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 3., MALLIKA,R,R, SHERISTEDAR, TALUK,OFFICE, ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:38672-DB( WP(No.(25839(of(2025( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010556872025( ( ( CHIKKABALLAPURATALUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 4., ANJANAPPA, CASE,WORKER,RECORD,ROOM, CHIKKABALLAPUR,A,TALUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 5., VENU, CASE,WORKER,RECORD,ROOM, CHIKKABALALPURA,TALUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 6., MUNIKARISHNA, CASE,WORKER,RECORD,ROOM, CHIKKABALALPURA,TALUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 7., KANTHA,B,M, SURVEY,SUPERVISOR, OFFICE,OF,ADLR, CHIKKABALLAPURA,TLAUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 8., MANJU, RECORD,ROOM,KEEPER, TALUK,OFFICE, CHIKKABALALPURA,TALUK, AND,DISTRICT,562101, , 9., SHIVANNA, D,GROUP,EMPLOYEE, TALUK,OFFICE, CHIKKABALALPURA,TALUK, AND,DISTRICT-562101, …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SRI.,VENKATESH.S.ARBATTI.,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R1), , , THIS, WRIT, PETITION, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLES, 226, AND, 227, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA,, PRAYING, TO, ISSUE A WRIT OF CERTIORARI OR ANY OTHER APPROPRIATE WRIT DIRECTIONS TO QUASHING THE ANNEXURE-C THAT IS THE