Sri. Devaraju Arasu v. State of Karnataka

((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:45209( WP(No.(5428(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010083872024( ( ( IN(THE(HIGH(COURT(OF(KARNATAKA(AT(BENGALURU( TH DATED(THIS(THE(20 (DAY(OF(AUGUST,(2026(

BEFORE(

THE(HON'BLE(MR.(JUSTICE(ASHOK(S.KINAGI(

WRIT(PETITION(NO.(5428(OF(2024((S-RES)(

BETWEEN:(( (

SRI.,DEVARAJU,ARASU, S/O.,SRI.,NARAYANA,ARAS,, AGED,ABOUT,53,YEARS,,

RESIDING,AT,ALAMBAGIRI,NILAYA,, 5TH,CROSS,,SHAMBULINGESHWARA,LAYOUT,, CHOLANAYAKANAHALLI,,

R.T.,NAGAR,, BENGALURU-560,032., …PETITIONER,

, (BY,SRI.,RAJESHA,SHETTIGARA.,,ADVOCATE), ( Digi tally AND:( signedtiby (SHILPABAI0S

1., STATE,OF,KARNATAKA,Location:

THE,PRINCIPAL,SECRETARY,TO,THE,GOVERNMENT,,HIGH0COURT OF DEPARTMENT,OF,KARNATAKA,VETERINARY,ANIMAL, KARNATAKA AND,FISHERIES,DEPARTMENT,, 4TH,FLOOR,,VIKASA,SOUDHA,, BENGALURU-560,001., ,

2., THE,VICE,CHANCELLOR, KARNATAKA,VETERINARY,ANIMAL,AND,FISHERIES, SCIENCES,UNIVERSITY,, NANDINAGAR,,P.B.,NO.,6,, BIDAR-585,401,, KARNATAKA., , ((((((((((((HC-KAR, NC:(2026:KHC:45209( WP(No.(5428(of(2024( ( ,,,,,,,,,, , CNR:(KAHC010083872024( ( (

3., THE,REGISTRAR, KARNATAKA,VETERINARY,ANIMAL,AND,FISHERIES, SCIENCES,UNIVERSITY,, HEBBALA,, BENGALURU-560,024., ,

4., THE,DEAN, VETERINARY,COLLEGE,, HEBBAL,, BENGALURU-560,024,, KARNATAKA., ,

5., SMT.,GIRIJA,BALEKAI, D/O.,SHANKARAPPA,, MAJOR,, WORKING,S,DIPLOMA,IN,PHARMACY,, KARNATAKA,VETERINARY,ANIMAL,AND,FISHERIES, SCIENCES,UNIVERSITY,, HEBBALA,, BENGALURU-560,024., …RESPONDENTS, , (BY,SMT.,ASHWINI,PATIL,,AGA,FOR,R1, SRI.,PRASHANTH,S,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,TO,R4,(VK,NOT,FILED), SMT.,VAISHALI,HEGDE,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R2,&,R3, SRI.,VIJAYA,KUMAR,,ADVOCATE,FOR,R5), , , THIS, WP, IS, FILED, UNDER, ARTICLE, 226, OF, THE, CONSTITUTION, OF, INDIA, PRAYING, TO, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENT, NO.2, , TO, CONSIDER, THE, REPRESENTATION, DATED,27/10/2021,AS,PER,ANNEXURE-A,SUBMITTED,BY,THE, PETITIONER, AND, DIRECT, THE, RESPONDENTS, TO, CONDUCT, ENQUIRY, ABOUT, ILLEGAL, APPOINTMENT, OBTAINED, BY, RESPONDENT, NO.5, AT, THE, AGE, OF, 44, YEARS, 6, MONTHS., ISSUE,A,WRIT,IN, THE,NATURE,OF,QUO,WARRANTO,OR,ANY, OTHER, APPROPRIATE, WRIT, PROHIBITING, THE, 5TH, RESPONDENT, FROM, EXERCISING, THE, DUTIES, AS, THE, DIPLOMA,IN,PHARMACY,IN,4TH,RESPONDENT,UNIVERSITY., ,

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN 'B' GROUP, THIS DAY, ORDER WAS MADE THEREIN AS UNDER:

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHOK S.KINAGI

ORAL ORDER

¶1The petitioner has filed this writ petition seeking following reliefs:

(a) "To issue a writ in the nature of the mandamus to direct respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated 27/10/2021 as per Annexure-A submitted by the petitioner and direct the respondents to conduct enquiry about illegal appointment obtained by respondent No.5 at the age of 44 years 6 months;

(b) issue a writ in the nature of quo warranto or any other appropriate writ prohibiting the 5th respondent from exercising the duties as the diploma in pharmacy in 4th respondent university.

(c) To grant such other relief or reliefs as this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to grant in the facts and circumstances of the case to meet the ends of justice."

¶2The petitioner restricts his claim only in respect of prayer (a) i.e., for a mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation dated

27.10.2021 vide Annexure-A, wherein the petitioner has requested respondents to conduct an enquiry about the illegal appointment obtained by respondent No.5 at the age of 44 years 6 months.

¶3Respondent No.5 was appointed vide order dated

22.07.2013. The petitioner submitted a representation questioning the same after a lapse of more than eight years from the date of appointment of respondent No.5.

¶4Though the representation was made in the year 2021, the petitioner has not taken any steps to see

as to whether respondent No.2 has considered the representation and passed an order.

¶5The petitioner has filed this writ petition on

07.02.2024 i.e., after a lapse of more than 2 years from the date of submitting the representation. The petitioner after submitting the representation kept quiet for more than 2 years. There is an inordinate delay in approaching the Court seeking for a writ of mandamus directing respondent No.2 to consider the representation vide Annexure-A. The petitioner has not shown sufficient cause for filing the writ petition at a belated stage.

¶6The Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of Chennai Metropolitan Water Supply and Sewerage Board and others versus T.T. Murali Babu1, has held in paragraph No.16 as follows:

1 (2014) 4 Supreme Court Cases 108

"16. Thus, the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside. A writ court is required to weigh the explanation offered and the acceptability of the same. The court should bear in mind that it is exercising an extraordinary and equitable jurisdiction. As a constitutional court it has a duty to protect the rights of the citizens but simultaneously it is to keep itself alive to the primary principle that when an aggrieved person, without adequate reason, approaches the court at his own leisure or pleasure, the court would be under legal obligation to scrutinise whether the lis at a belated stage should be entertained or not. Be it noted, delay comes in the way of equity. In certain circumstances delay and laches may not be fatal but in most circumstances inordinate delay would only invite disaster for the litigant who knocks at the doors of the court. Delay reflects inactivity and inaction on the part of a litigant — a litigant who has forgotten the basic norms, namely, "procrastination is the greatest thief of

time" and second, law does not permit one to sleep and rise like a phoenix. Delay does bring in hazard and causes injury to the lis."

¶7From a bare reading of paragraph No.16, the Apex Court has held that the doctrine of delay and laches should not be lightly brushed aside and also further held that belated approach gains more significance, as the respondent being absolutely careless to his duty and further held that the Court is not expected to give indulgence to such indolent persons—who compete with "Kumbhakarna" or for that matter "Rip Vank Winkle".

¶8The Apex Court in the case of Shivamma (dead) by LRs v. Karnataka Housing Board2, held in paragraph No.261 as follows: "261. Thus, for the reasons aforesaid, the impugned order of the High Court deserves to be set

2 2025 SCC OnLine 1969

aside. Before we proceed to close this judgment, we deem it appropriate to make it abundantly clear that administrative lethargy and laxity can never stand as a sufficient ground for condonation of delay, and we want to convey an emphatic message to all the High Courts that delays shall not be condoned on frivolous and superficial grounds, until a proper case of sufficient cause is made out, wherein the State-machinery is able to establish that it acted with bona fides and remained vigilant all throughout. Procedure is a handmaid to justice, as is famously said. But courts, and more particularly the constitutional courts, ought not to obviate the procedure for a litigating State agency, who also equally suffer the bars of limitation from pursuing litigations due to its own lackadaisical attitude." (emphasis supplied)

¶9In the instant case, as there is a delay of more than 2 years in approaching this Court, following the mandate laid down by the Hon'ble Apex Court in the aforesaid cases, the writ petition is liable to be dismissed only on the ground of delay and laches.

¶10In the result, I proceed to pass the following order: ORDER

(i) The writ petition is dismissed on the ground of delay and laches.

(ii) In view of the dismissal of the petition, pending interlocutory applications, if any, do not survive for consideration and are accordingly disposed of.

Sd/- (ASHOK S.KINAGI) JUDGE

RK List No.: 1 Sl No.: 25