Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984. After receipt of report from Lokayukta or Upalokayukta under Section 12(3), it is mandatory for the Government to record reasons to entrust matter to Lokayukta Upalokayutka or disciplinary authority. Doctrine of per incuriam discussed- Karnataka High Court.

K.S. Nanjegowda vs State by Karnataka Lokayuktha. Writ Petition 48384/2017 and connected case decided on 12 November 2020.

Judgment Link: https://karnatakajudiciary.kar.nic.in/noticeBoard/wp-48384-2017-cw-61697-2016.pdf

31….Section 12(4) of Act, 1984 mandates the competent authority to examine the investigation report submitted on behalf of the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta. On this point Dr.K.Lalitha vs The State of Karnataka and others 2019 (4) KLJ 344 assists the petitioners case. Similarly, Rule 14-A(2)(iii) of Rules, 1957 provides two
options to the Government that after due examination of the investigation report of the Upalokayukta under Section 12(3)
of Act 1984, Government has to make up its mind as to
whether matter is required to be entrusted to the
Lokayukta/Upalokayukta with reference to Rule 11 of Rules,
1957 or entrusting to disciplinary authority with reference to
Rule 12 of Rules, 1957. In such circumstances, it is
mandatory for the Government to record reasons as to why
the matter is being entrusted to the Lokayukta/Upalokayukta
or to disciplinary authority.…It is obligatory on the part of the Government when it is in receipt of investigation report under Section 12(3) of the Act 1984, to reveal the reasons as to why matter is entrusted to Lokayukta/Upalokayuta or disciplinary authority, when option is provided under statute.

Doctrine of per incuriam. Paragraphs 36-40

Ingredient with the judgment per incuriam as
quoted by Sir John Salmond in his ‘Treatise on
Jurisprudence’ has aptly stated the circumstances under
which a precedent can be treated as per incuriam. It is stated
that a precedent is not binding for which it was rendered in ignorance of a statute or a rule having the force of statute or delegated legislation.

Mr.Govindrajan in his book called ‘Invoking the
doctrine of per incuriam’, states that the Rule applies even
though the Court knew of the statutes in question but it did
not refer to and had not present to its mind the precise terms
of the statute. Similarly, a Court may know all the extension
of a statute and yet not appreciate its relevancy to the matter
on hand, such a mistake is again per incuriam so as to vitiate
the decision. Even the lower Court can impugn a precedent
on such grounds.

Compiled by S. Basavaraj, Advocate, Daksha Legal.