IMPORTANT POINT
Natural Justice – Aim to rule of natural justice is to secure justice – These rules can operate only in areas not covered by any law validly made.

JUDGMENT :

Rastogi, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant appeals are directed against the judgment dated 3rd February, 2021 passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of Orissa at Cuttack setting aside Order dated 11th December, 2020 passed by the Odisha Lokayukta initiating to conduct a preliminary inquiry in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014(hereinafter being referred to as the “Act 2014”) on a complaint dated 9th December, 2020 received from Mr.Ranjan Kumar Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell Unit, Bhubaneswar indicating the alleged corruption against respondent no. 1 who is the elected Member of the Legislative Assembly of Gopalpur Constituency directing the Directorate of Vigilance, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry and submit a report to the Lokayukta.

3. The review petition filed at the instance of the appellant on the premise that Odisha Lokayukta was never heard and no opportunity of hearing has been afforded before passing of the impugned Order dated 3rd February, 2021 and it was in violation of the principles of natural justice, came to be dismissed by passing a non-speaking Order dated 5th April, 2021.

4. Respondent no. 1 is an elected Member of the Legislative Assembly. Mr. Ranjan Kumar Das, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell Unit, Bhubaneswar, made a complaint dated 9th December, 2020 indicating serious allegations of alleged corruption against Member of the Odisha Legislative Assembly of Gopalpur Constituency. Along with the complaint, supporting documents were also annexed. The Odisha Lokayukta, after taking into consideration the contents of the complaint and the supporting documents annexed thereto, in exercise of power conferred under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 directed the Directorate of Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry against respondent no. 1 and submit a report within two months with a further direction that the Directorate of Vigilance must ensure that during preliminary inquiry, the mandate of Section 20(2) has to be complied with and further directed the Office of Lokayukta to make available all the relevant record to the Directorate of Vigilance for compliance.

5. Immediately on a reference made by the Odisha Lokayukta by its Order dated 11th December, 2020 directing the Directorate of Vigilance to conduct a preliminary inquiry against respondent no. 1 and calling upon the report, came to be challenged by respondent no. 1 by filing writ petition before the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution. Although the Office of Lokayukta was impleaded as one of respondent before the High Court but as informed to this Court, no notice was issued to them and on the first date of hearing, without even affording opportunity of hearing to the appellant to submit their written response, the Division Bench of the High Court under Order dated 3rd February, 2021 proceeded on the premise that entrusting Directorate of Vigilance to conduct preliminary inquiry is not in terms of the mandate of Section 20(1) and set aside the Order dated 11th December, 2020 with a liberty to the Lokayukta to conduct preliminary inquiry, if so advised, against respondent no. 1 by the inquiry wing of the Lokayukta with a further liberty to proceed in conformity with the requirements of Sections 20(2) and 20(3) after the preliminary report being furnished by the inquiry wing of the Lokayukta.

6. A review filed by the Lokayukta against the Order impugned dated 3rd February, 2021 came to be dismissed by a non-speaking order dated 5th April, 2021 which is a subject matter of challenge in the appeals before us.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the order impugned dated 3rd February, 2021 is in violation of the principles of nature justice and the finding has been recorded without affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant and that apart, it is not in conformity with the mandate of Section 20(1