My photo




Sunday, April 12, 2015

maintainability of the complaint filed by the 4th respondent and the legality and legitimacy of the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta, U.P. in making the recommendations set out in the report dated 4th October, 2011.What the Third Schedule to the Act contemplates is that the Lokayukta in the course of an investigation under the Act will not investigate a crime or determine the question as to whether the matter "shall go to, or shall continue to be prosecuted in a court or not". In the present case, the recommendations of the Lokayukta were merely for an investigation as to whether a case for prosecution of the appellant is made out or not. Accordingly, the matter was investigated and presently is under trial in a court of competent jurisdiction. All the said subsequent facts as noted in details at the very outset make it clear that even if the contentions of the appellant with regard to the Third Schedule to the Act are to be accepted, (we make it clear that we do not accept the same), the question that would arise has become wholly academic.


                        IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
                        CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
                        CIVIL APPEAL NO.3581 OF 2015
      [Arising out of Special Leave Petition (Civil) No.13697 of 2012]



& ORS.                              ...RESPONDENTS



1.          Leave granted.

2.          The challenge  in  this  appeal  is  to  the  order  dated  11th
November, 2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad in  Writ-
C No.62471 of 2011 by which the writ petition filed  by  the  appellant  has
been dismissed.

3.          The challenge in the writ petition, inter alia, was against  the
report dated 4th  October,  2011  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  containing  the
following recommendations:

|"(1)  |The Charged Public Servant, Minister|
|      |of Secondary Education, Shri Ranga  |
|      |Nath Mishra, as the sources of      |
|      |income of the properties earned by  |
|      |him from 2007 onwards are not known,|
|      |therefore, for prosecution under    |
|      |section 13(1)(e) of the Prevention  |
|      |of Corruption Act, 1988, criminal   |
|      |investigation be got done by an     |
|      |independent agency like C.B.C.I.D.  |
|      |or Uttar Pradesh Vigilance          |
|      |Commission, and his prosecution be  |
|      |considered to be initiated.         |
|(2)   |On the basis of the illegal         |
|      |possession of the Gram Sabha land of|
|      |Gat No.666 Mi/O.106 Hect. in Village|
|      |Aurai, Bhadohi,  District Sant Ravi |
|      |Das Nagar, the proceedings be       |
|      |initiated against the charged Public|
|      |Servant Shri Ranga Nath Mishra,     |
|      |under Section 122 of the Abolition  |
|      |of Zamindari Act, and the concerned |
|      |Dy. District Collector should       |
|      |register the case and the aforesaid |
|      |land of the Gram Sabha be ordered to|
|      |be released from his possession.    |
|(3)   |During the aforesaid criminal       |
|      |proceedings and release of the land |
|      |from his possession, for taking     |
|      |independent action as per the       |
|      |Investigation Unit and as per the   |
|      |rules of the competent authority,   |
|      |the Charged Public Servant, Minister|
|      |of Secondary Education, be removed  |
|      |from the portfolio of the Minister  |
|      |so that the aforesaid legal         |
|      |proceedings could be carried out    |
|      |independently.                      |
|(4)   |The Criminal Investigation be done  |
|      |through such an agency which can    |
|      |also investigate into the           |
|      |investments of such properties made |
|      |in the State and outside the State. |
|(5)   |The compliance report in respect of |
|      |the aforesaid recommendations be    |
|      |made available within a month."     |

4.          As the aforesaid recommendations of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  have
been implemented and necessary action in terms thereof has been  taken,  the
relief prayed for in this appeal has been truncated to  a  declaration  that
the aforesaid report dated 4th October,  2011  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  is
contrary to the mandatory procedure prescribed under the  U.P.  Lokayukta  &
Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (for the sake of  convenience  hereinafter  referred
to as "the Act") and  that  the  said  report  suffers  from  vice  of  non-
application of mind.

5.          The brief facts antecedent to  the  report  dated  4th  October,
2011 of the Lokayukta, U.P. may now be conveniently taken  note  of  at  the

            It appears that the  respondent  No.4  in  the  present  appeal,
Swami Nath  Misra,  had  submitted  an  undated  complaint  to  the  Hon'ble
President of India, Prime Minister of India, Governor of U.P.,  Lucknow  and
Chairman, Central Board of Direct Taxes, Income Tax  Department,  New  Delhi
demanding an enquiry in to the alleged acquisition of  huge  assets  by  the
appellant who was then serving as a Cabinet Minister in the State  of  Uttar
Pradesh.  The said  complaint  was  reiterated  by  a  reminder  dated  27th
August, 2010 which was, inter alia, addressed  to  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.   A
communication dated  18th October, 2010 was addressed to  the  appellant  by
the Secretary of the Lokayukta, U.P.  intimating  him  that  the  Lokayukta,
U.P. has decided to hold a preliminary enquiry into the  complaint,  a  copy
of which was forwarded  to  the  appellant.   The  said  letter  dated  18th
October, 2010 was followed by another letter dated 18th November,  2010.  It
appears that the 2nd communication (reminder) dated 27th August,  2010  sent
by the complainant, inter alia, to the Lokayukta, U.P. was  not  accompanied
by an affidavit of the complainant which apparently was filed later i.e.  on
22nd December, 2010.  This  was  done  apparently  when  the  appellant  had
demanded  that  a  copy  of  such  affidavit  be  made  available  to   him.
Thereafter, a letter dated 14th February, 2011 was sent  by  the  office  of
the Lokayukta, U.P. to the  appellant  intimating  him  that  the  complaint
filed against  the  appellant  has  been  accepted  for  investigation.  The
appellant raised an objection dated 10th April,  2011  with  regard  to  the
maintainability of the complaint on the ground of its improper  presentation
and also on the ground that the complaint was not supported by an  affidavit
of the complainant, as required.  No specific order was passed on  the  said
objection raised by the appellant.  Instead, correspondences were  exchanged
by and between the office of the Lokayukta, U.P. and the  appellant  seeking
and submitting the replies of the appellant and the documents in support  of
the stand taken by the appellant  in  the  said  replies.   Eventually,  the
report dated 4th October, 2011 was submitted, the  contents  of  which  have
already been noted. It is the  legality  and  the  legitimacy  of  the  said
report rendered in the aforesaid circumstances that  was  challenged  before
the High Court resulting in the decision dated  11th  November,  2011  which
has been impugned in the present appeal before us.

6.          The facts and events that have occurred after submission of  the
report dated 4th October, 2011 of the Lokayukta, U.P. may now be taken  note

            On the basis of the said report of the Lokayukta, U.P. the  then
Chief Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh had dropped the appellant  from
the Council of Ministers on the  very  next  day  i.e.  5th  October,  2011.
Thereafter, an Open Vigilance Enquiry against the appellant was ordered  and
on the basis of the report of the said enquiry a decision was taken  that  a
criminal case under the Prevention of Corruption  Act,  1988  be  instituted
against  the  appellant  by  the  Vigilance   Department   of   the   State.
Accordingly,   a  FIR  was  filed  against  the  appellant  which  was  duly
investigated and charge-sheet dated 30th July, 2013 was filed in  the  court
of competent jurisdiction.  Cognizance of the  offences  alleged  was  taken
and subsequently on 19th August, 2013 charges have been framed  against  the
appellant  in  the  Court  of  the  learned  Special  Judge  (Prevention  of
Corruption  Act),  Varanasi  under  Sections  13(1)(e)  and  13(2)  of   the
Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988.   The  appellant  is  presently  facing
trial in the said case.

7.          Insofar as the  recommendations  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  with
regard to the Gram Sabha land allegedly in the possession of  the  appellant
is concerned, the enquiries held had exonerated the appellant.

8.           We  have  heard  Dr.  Rajeev  Dhawan,  learned  Senior  Counsel
appearing for the appellant and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,  learned  counsel
for the State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  We  have  also  considered  the  written
arguments submitted for and on behalf of the parties.

9.          The challenge made by the appellant  primarily  revolves  around
the maintainability of the complaint filed by the  4th  respondent  and  the
legality and legitimacy of the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta,  U.P.  in
making the recommendations set out in the report dated 4th October, 2011.

10.         To appreciate the arguments advanced by  the  rival  parties  it
will be necessary to take note of the relevant provisions of the  Act  which
are extracted below:

|   |"7. Matters which may be investigated by   |
|   |Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta.- (1) Subject to |
|   |the provisions of this Act and on a        |
|   |complaint involving a grievance or an      |
|   |allegation being made in that behalf the   |
|   |Lokayukta may investigate any action which |
|   |is taken by, or with the general or        |
|   |specific approval of -                     |
|   |(i) a Minister or a Secretary; and         |
|   |(ii) any public servant referred to in     |
|   |sub-clause (ii) or sub-clause (iv) of      |
|   |clause (j) of section 2; or                |
|   |(iii) any other public servant being a     |
|   |public servant of a class or sub-class of  |
|   |public servants notified by the State      |
|   |Government in consultation with the        |
|   |Lokayukta, in this behalf.                 |
|   |                                           |
|   |(2)Subject to the provisions of this Act   |
|   |and on a complaint involving a grievance or|
|   |an allegation being made in that behalf, an|
|   |Up-Lokayukta may investigate any action    |
|   |which is taken by or with the general or   |
|   |specific approval of any public servant not|
|   |being a Minister, Secretary or other public|
|   |servant referred to in sub-section (1).    |
|   |                                           |
|   |(3) Notwithstanding anything contained in  |
|   |sub-section (2), the Lokayukta may, for    |
|   |reasons to be recorded in writing,         |
|   |investigate any action which may be        |
|   |investigated by an Up-Lokayukta under that |
|   |sub-section.                               |
|   |                                           |
|   |(4) Where two or more Up-Lokayuktas are    |
|   |appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta    |
|   |may, by general or special order, assign to|
|   |each of them, matters which may be         |
|   |investigated by them under this Act:       |
|   |                                           |
|   |Provided that no investigation made by an  |
|   |Up-Lokayukta under this Act, and no action |
|   |taken or thing done by him in respect of   |
|   |such investigation shall be open to        |
|   |question on the ground only that such      |
|   |investigation related to a matter which is |
|   |not assigned to him by such order.         |
|   |8. Matters not subject to investigation.-  |
|   |(1) Except as hereinafter provided, the    |
|   |Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall not     |
|   |conduct any investigation under this Act-  |
|   |                                           |
|   |(a) except on a complaint made under and in|
|   |accordance with section 9; or              |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) in the case of a complaint involving a |
|   |grievance in respect of any action,-       |
|   |(i) if such action relates to any matter   |
|   |specified in the Third Schedule; or        |
|   |(ii) if the complainant has or had any     |
|   |remedy by way of proceeding before any     |
|   |Tribunal or Court of law:                  |
|   |                                           |
|   |Provided that nothing in sub-clause (ii)   |
|   |shall prevent the Lokayukta or an          |
|   |Up-Lokayukta from conducting an            |
|   |investigation if he is satisfied that such |
|   |person could not or cannot, for sufficient |
|   |cause, have recourse to a remedy referred  |
|   |to in that sub-clause.                     |
|   |                                           |
|   |(2) The Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall |
|   |not investigate any action,-               |
|   |(a) in respect of which a formal and public|
|   |inquiry has been ordered under the Public  |
|   |Servants (Inquiries) Act, 1850 (Central Act|
|   |37 of 1850), by the Government of India or |
|   |by the State Government; or                |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) in respect of a matter which has been  |
|   |referred for inquiry under the Commissions |
|   |of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of    |
|   |1952), by the Government of India or by the|
|   |State Government.                          |
|   |                                           |
|   |(3) The Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall |
|   |not investigate any complaint which is     |
|   |excluded from his jurisdiction by virtue of|
|   |a notification issued under section 19.    |
|   |                                           |
|   |(4) The Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall |
|   |not investigate,-                          |
|   |                                           |
|   |(a) any complaint involving a grievance, if|
|   |the complaint is made after the expiry of  |
|   |twelve months from the date on which the   |
|   |action complained against becomes known to |
|   |the complainant;                           |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) any complaint involving an allegation, |
|   |if the complaint is made after the expiry  |
|   |of five years from the date on which the   |
|   |action complained against is alleged to    |
|   |have taken place:                          |
|   |                                           |
|   |Provided that the Lokayukta or an          |
|   |Up-Lokayukta may entertain a complaint     |
|   |referred to in clause (a), if the          |
|   |complainant satisfies him that he had      |
|   |sufficient cause for not making the        |
|   |complaint within the period specified in   |
|   |that clause.                               |
|   |                                           |
|   |(5) In the case of any complaint involving |
|   |a grievance, nothing in this Act shall be  |
|   |construed as empowering the Lokayukta or an|
|   |Up-Lokayukta to question any administrative|
|   |action involving the exercise of a         |
|   |discretion except where he is satisfied    |
|   |that the elements involved in the exercise |
|   |of the discretion are absent to such an    |
|   |extent that the discretion cannot be       |
|   |regarded as having been properly exercised.|
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   |(6) The Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta shall |
|   |not investigate any complaint involving a  |
|   |grievance against a public servant referred|
|   |to in sub-clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) of |
|   |clause (j) of section 2.                   |
|   |                                           |
|   |9. Provisions relating to complaints-      |
|   |(1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, |
|   |a complaint may be made under this Act to  |
|   |the Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta-          |
|   |                                           |
|   |(a) in the case of a grievance, by the     |
|   |person aggrieved;                          |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) in the case of an allegation, by any   |
|   |person other than a sitting public servant:|
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   |Provided that, where the person aggrieved  |
|   |is dead or is for any reason unable to act |
|   |for himself, the complaint may be made by  |
|   |any person who in law represents his estate|
|   |or, as the case may be, by any person who  |
|   |is authorized by him in this behalf.       |
|   |                                           |
|   |Provided further that in the case of a     |
|   |grievance involving a complaint referred to|
|   |in sub-clause (ii) of clause (d) of section|
|   |2, the complaint may be made also by an    |
|   |organization recognized in that behalf by  |
|   |the State Government.                      |
|   |                                           |
|   |(2) Every complaint shall be accompanied by|
|   |the complainant's own affidavit in support |
|   |thereof and also affidavits of all persons |
|   |from whom he claims to have received       |
|   |information of facts relating to the       |
|   |accusation, verified before a notary       |
|   |together with all documents in his         |
|   |possession or power pertaining to the      |
|   |accusation and a sum of Two thousand rupees|
|   |shall be paid as security along with the   |
|   |complaint, in respect to complaint         |
|   |involving allegatio, filed under the Uttar |
|   |Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas        |
|   |(Complaint) Rules, 1977.                   |
|   |                                           |
|   |(3) Every complaint and affidavit under    |
|   |this section as well as any schedule or    |
|   |annexure thereto shall be verified in the  |
|   |manner laid down in the Code of Civil      |
|   |Procedure, 1908, for the verification of   |
|   |pleadings and affidavits respectively.     |
|   |                                           |
|   |(4) Not less than three copies of the      |
|   |complaint as well as of each of its        |
|   |annexures shall be submitted by the        |
|   |complainant.                               |
|   |                                           |
|   |(5) A complaint which does not comply with |
|   |any of the foregoing provisions shall not  |
|   |be entertained.                            |
|   |                                           |
|   |(6) Notwithstanding anything, contained in |
|   |sub-sections (1) to (5), or in any other   |
|   |enactment, any letter written to the       |
|   |Lokayukta or Up-Lokayukta by a person in   |
|   |police custody, or in gaol or in any asylum|
|   |or other place for insane persons, shall be|
|   |forwarded to the addressee unopened and    |
|   |without delay by the police officer or     |
|   |other persons in charge of such gaol,      |
|   |asylum, or other place, and the Lokayukta  |
|   |or Up-Lokayukta, as the case may be, may   |
|   |entertain it and treat it as a complaint,  |
|   |but no action in respect of such complaint |
|   |shall be taken unless it is accompanied or |
|   |subsequently supported by an affidavit     |
|   |under sub-section (2).                     |
|   |10. Procedure in respect of                |
|   |investigations.-(1) Whether the Lokayukta  |
|   |or an Up-Lokayukta proposes (after making  |
|   |such preliminary inquiry, if any, as he    |
|   |deems fit) to conduct any investigation    |
|   |under this Act, he-                        |
|   |                                           |
|   |(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint  |
|   |to the public servant concerned and the    |
|   |competent authority concerned;             |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) shall afford to the public servant     |
|   |concerned an opportunity to offer his      |
|   |comments on such complaints; and           |
|   |                                           |
|   |(c) may make such orders as to the safe    |
|   |custody of documents relevant to the       |
|   |investigation, as he deems fit.            |
|   |                                           |
|   |(2) Every such investigation shall be      |
|   |conducted in private, and in particular,   |
|   |the identity of the complainant and of the |
|   |public servant affected by the             |
|   |investigation shall not be disclosed to the|
|   |public or the press whether before, during |
|   |or after the investigation:                |
|   |                                           |
|   |Provided that, the Lokayukta or an         |
|   |Up-Lokayukta may conduct any investigation |
|   |relating to a matter of definite public    |
|   |importance in public, if he, for reasons to|
|   |be recorded in writing, thinks fit to do   |
|   |so.                                        |
|   |                                           |
|   |(3) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for   |
|   |conducting any such investigation shall be |
|   |such as the Lokayukta or, as the case may  |
|   |be, the Up-Lokayukta considers appropriate |
|   |in the circumstances of the case.          |
|   |                                           |
|   |(4) The Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta may,  |
|   |in his discretion, refuse to investigate or|
|   |cease to investigate any complaint         |
|   |involving a grievance or, an allegation, if|
|   |in his opinion-                            |
|   |                                           |
|   |(a) the complaint is frivolous or          |
|   |vexatious, or is not made in good faith; or|
|   |                                           |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) there are no sufficient grounds for    |
|   |investigating or, as the case may be, for  |
|   |continuing the investigation; or           |
|   |                                           |
|   |(c) other remedies are available to the    |
|   |complainant and in the circumstances of the|
|   |case it would be more proper for the       |
|   |complainant to avail of such remedies.     |
|   |                                           |
|   |(5) In any case where the Lokayukta or an  |
|   |Up-Lokayukta decides not to entertain a    |
|   |complaint or to discontinue any            |
|   |investigation in respect of a complaint or |
|   |to discontinue any investigation in respect|
|   |of a complaint, he shall record his reasons|
|   |therefor and communicate the same to the   |
|   |complainant and the public servant         |
|   |concerned.                                 |
|   |                                           |
|   |(6) The conduct of an investigation under  |
|   |this Act in respect of any action shall not|
|   |affect such action, or any power or duty of|
|   |any public servant to take further action  |
|   |with respect to any matter subject to the  |
|   |investigation.                             |
|   |THE THIRD SCHEDULE                         |
|   |[ See SECTION 8 (1) (b) (i) ]              |
|   |                                           |
|   |(a) Action taken for the purpose of        |
|   |investigating crime or protecting the      |
|   |security of the Sate.                      |
|   |                                           |
|   |(b) Action taken in the exercise of powers |
|   |in relation to determining whether a matter|
|   |shall go to, or shall continue to be       |
|   |prosecuted in a court or not.              |
|   |                                           |
|   |(c) Action taken in matters which arise out|
|   |of the terms of a contract governing purely|
|   |commercial relations of the administration |
|   |of the Government or of the local authority|
|   |or other corporation, company or society,  |
|   |as the case may be, with customers or      |
|   |suppliers except where the complainant     |
|   |alleges harassment or gross delay in       |
|   |meeting contractual obligations.           |
|   |(d) Action taken in respect of appointments|
|   |other than an appointment referred to in   |
|   |clause (ii) of clause (d) of section 2,    |
|   |removals, pay, discipline, superannuation  |
|   |or other matters relating to conditions of |
|   |service of public servants but not         |
|   |including action relating to claims, for   |
|   |pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any|
|   |claims which arise on retirement, removal  |
|   |or termination of service.                 |
|   |                                           |
|   |(e) Grant of honours and awards."          |

11.         Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned  Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the
appellant  has  very  strenuously  urged  that   the   investigation/enquiry
undertaken by the Lokayukta, U.P. in the present case being in respect of  a
matter covered by the Third Schedule  is  barred  under  the  provisions  of
Section 8(1)(b)(i) of the Act read with the Third Schedule.  It  is  further
argued that there was no complaint to the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  as  mandatorily
required under Section 9 and assuming that the reminder dated  27th  August,
2010 can be treated as a complaint it was not supported by an  affidavit  of
the complainant. Dr. Dhawan has further argued that  under  Rule  5  of  the
Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Complaint Rules, 1977  (hereinafter
referred to as "the Rules") framed under  the  Act,  a  complainant  can  be
granted an opportunity to make up the deficiencies in the  complaint  within
a fixed period.  The provisions of the said Rules, however, cannot  override
the requirement of filing an affidavit which is mandated by Section 9(2)  of
the Act.  Alternatively, it is urged that even if the said  deficiency  i.e.
absence of the affidavit of the complainant can be cured what  had  happened
in the present case is that the said affidavit of the complainant was  filed
on 22nd December, 2010 whereas notice of preliminary enquiry was  issued  to
the appellant on 18th October, 2010.  Dr. Dhawan has further argued that  in
the present case no preliminary enquiry was held inasmuch as no decision  on
such preliminary enquiry was  communicated  to  the  appellant  as  required
under the Act. Furthermore, it is urged that  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  in  the
present case had acted in undue haste inasmuch as though  the  appellant  on
29th September, 2011 had prayed for 15 days' time to furnish  the  requisite
documents, the report was published on 4th October, 2011  without  reference
to and due consideration of the request made by the  appellant.  Lastly,  it
is urged that there was no investigation in the case as mandated by the  Act
and no opportunity of personal hearing was afforded to the appellant.

12.         Controverting the aforesaid submissions made on  behalf  of  the
appellant, Shri Ravi Prakash Mehrotra, learned  counsel  for  the  State  of
Uttar Pradesh has urged that the objections raised by the  appellant  before
this Court are mere reiterations of what has been   urged  before  the  High
Court. All such pleas were adequately considered by the High  Court  in  the
impugned order dated 11th November, 2011 and there is  no  basis  to  reopen
the said findings and conclusions  of  the  High  Court.  Pointing  out  the
provisions of Section 10(3) of the Act, Shri Mehrotra  has  urged  that  the
procedure for conducting a proceeding under the  Act  would  be  as  may  be
considered appropriate by the Lokayukta in the  facts  of  any  given  case.
Shri Mehrotra has further urged that in the present case on receipt  of  the
report of the Lokayukta necessary action has  been  taken  and  presently  a
criminal trial is pending against the appellant. There will,  therefore,  be
no basis for this Court to interdict the report of the Lokayukta.

13.         We have  considered  the  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the

14.         It is correct that on 18th October, 2010 when the appellant  was
intimated by the office of the Lokayukta that a decision has been  taken  to
hold a preliminary enquiry into the complaint filed by the  respondent  No.4
and a  copy  of  the  complaint  along  with  the  enclosures  thereto  were
forwarded to the appellant, the complaint filed  was  not  supported  by  an
affidavit of the complainant - respondent No.4. The said  fact  was  pointed
out by the appellant in his letter dated 20th December,  2010  addressed  to
the Secretary, Lokayukta, U.P.  Thereafter, it appears that the  complainant
had filed an affidavit on 22nd December, 2010 in support of  the  complaint.
The said affidavit was taken on record and thereafter a  letter  dated  14th
February, 2011 was sent by  the  Under  Secretary  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.
informing the appellant that the complaint filed by the 4th  respondent  has
been  accepted  for  investigation.   Though  not  expressly  mentioned  the
reception/acceptance of the affidavit of  the  complainant  filed  belatedly
was permissible  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  Rule  5  of  the  Rules.
Thereafter,   the   appellant   raised   his   objections   regarding    the
maintainability of  the  complaint  and  the  affidavit  filed.  Instead  of
passing a specific order on the aforesaid issue  of  maintainability  raised
by the appellant it  appears  that  communications  were  addressed  by  the
office of the Lokayukta, U.P. to the  appellant  asking  for  submission  of
replies and documents which communications were duly  responded  to  by  the
appellant from time to time i.e. 5th July, 2011, 5th August, 2011  and  24th
August, 2011. The said facts would indicate that the  preliminary  objection
raised by the appellant did not find favour of the Lokayukta. The  same  was
not  expressly  recorded  but  clearly  evident  from  the  steps  taken  in
continuance of the proceeding which was not objected to by the appellant.

15.      On receipt of the documents  submitted  by  the  appellant  on  the
various dates mentioned above, the office of the Lokayukta, U.P.  by  letter
dated 20th September, 2011 asked for further documents  from  the  appellant
i.e. consolidated audited balance  sheet  of  last  three  years  of  Keshav
Prasad Indravati Devi  Smriti  Seva  Samiti,  Modern  Girls  Inter  College,
Abhaypur, Keshav Prasad Indravati Devi Balika Inter  College  Sahsepur,  the
Registration Certificate of Income Tax made  in  Form  12-A  in  respect  of
Keshav Prasad Indravati Devi Smriti Seva Samiti and  copies  of  Income  Tax
Return filed in Form 7 in last three  years  in  respect  of  Keshav  Prasad
Indravati Devi Smriti Seva Samiti.   The  appellant  by  letter  dated  29th
September, 2011 asked for 15 days' time.  Instead on 4th October,  2011  the
report of the Lokayukta, U.P. was submitted.

16.          Though  the  first  complaint  (undated)   submitted   by   the
respondent No.4 was not addressed  to  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.,  the  reminder
dated 27th August, 2010 was addressed, inter alia, to  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.
If that is so, there is no reason why the same cannot be understood to be  a
complaint to the Lokayukta, U.P. for further action on  the  basis  thereof.
If reception/acceptance of a subsequent  affidavit  of  the  complainant  in
support of a complaint filed earlier  is  contemplated  by  Rule  5  of  the
Rules, we do not see why any fault  can  be  found  in  the  action  of  the
Lokayukta, U.P.  in  accepting  the  affidavit  dated  22nd  December,  2010
submitted by the complainant.  Though the notice dated  18th  October,  2010
for preliminary enquiry was issued  at  an  earlier  stage,  it  is  by  the
communication dated 14th February, 2011, (after  receipt  of  the  affidavit
dated 22nd  December,  2010)  that  the  appellant  was  informed  that  the
complaint of the respondent No.4 has been accepted for  investigation  under
Section 10(1)(a) of the Act.  If, in the light of the aforesaid  facts,  the
Lokayukta, U.P. had decided to proceed further in the matter and had  issued
communications to the appellant  asking  for  his  reply  and  documents  in
defence which were adequately responded  to  by  the  appellant  on  several
dates, as  noticed  earlier,  we  do  not  see  how  the  appellant  can  be
understood to be justified in raising  the  issue  of  defect  of  procedure
before the High Court  and  before  this  Court.  The  capitulation  of  the
relevant dates and events leave no room  for  doubt  that  all  requirements
under the Act have been complied with in the instant case.

17.         While it is  correct  that  the  report  of  the  Lokayukta  was
submitted without affording any  opportunity  of  personal  hearing  to  the
appellant and the request for time for submission of the documents  made  by
the appellant on 29th September, 2011 was  refused  by  the  Lokayukta,  the
said facts cannot constitute good and sufficient basis  for  this  Court  to
find fault with the conduct of the proceedings by the  Lokayukta,  U.P.   in
view of the provisions of  Section  10(3)  of  the  Act  which,  as  already
noticed, leaves to the Lokayukta the discretion to adopt such  procedure  as
may be considered appropriate in the given facts of the case.  No  prejudice
also has been caused to the appellant who had taken part in the  proceedings
at every stage.  The refusal to grant further  time  to  the  appellant,  an
issue over which some grievance has been raised, is a matter  of  discretion
vested in the Lokayukta and any decision thereon  either  way  cannot  be  a
legitimate basis for interference.

18.         Before parting, the issue with regard  to  the  jurisdiction  of
the Lokayukta to proceed in the instant matter in view of the provisions  of
the Third Schedule to the Act must be answered.  What the Third Schedule  to
the  Act  contemplates  is  that  the  Lokayukta  in  the   course   of   an
investigation under the Act will not investigate a crime  or  determine  the
question as to whether the matter "shall go to,  or  shall  continue  to  be
prosecuted in a court or not".  In the present case, the recommendations  of
the Lokayukta were merely for an investigation as  to  whether  a  case  for
prosecution of the appellant is made out or  not.  Accordingly,  the  matter
was investigated and presently is  under  trial  in  a  court  of  competent
jurisdiction. All the said subsequent facts as noted in details at the  very
outset make it clear that even if the  contentions  of  the  appellant  with
regard to the Third Schedule to the Act are to  be  accepted,  (we  make  it
clear that we do not accept the same), the question  that  would  arise  has
become wholly academic.

19.         In the light of the above, we find no merit in this appeal.   It
is accordingly dismissed, however, without any order as to costs.

                                (RANJAN GOGOI)

                                (N.V. RAMANA)
APRIL 10, 2015

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.