D. J. JAGANNADHA RAJU, J.

( 1 ) THESE two writ appeals arise out of the common judgment dated 16th october, 1987, in writ petitions W. P. No. 3555 of 1986 and W. P. No. 4753 of 1986. W. P. No. 3555 of 1986 was filed questioning the proposal to conduct an investigation by the Lokayukta into Complaint No. 871 of 1986 regarding three allegations. W. P. No. 4753 of 1986 was filed questioning the proceedings of the lokayukta in Dis. No. 4144 dated 15-4-1986 initiating an investigation on his own motion. The learned single judge allowed the two writ petitions and quashed the proceedings impugned in the two writ petitions.

( 2 ) THE present respondent Dr. B. Seshadri was working as the Principal and superintendent of the Government Dental College/hospital, Hyderabad. A student by name C. Sekhar gave a complaint to the Lokayukta. Subsequently the complainant did not support the allegations in the complaint and when an opportunity was given to him to fulfil the formalities of a complaint under the andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (hereinafter called the Act ), he failed to do it. The learned Lokayukta did not dismiss the complaint in limine though Section 9 of the Act and Rule 3 of the Andhra pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta (Investigations) Rules, 1984 (hereinafter called the Rules ) were not complied with. The Lokayukta took cognizance of the petition as a complaint by order dated 13-8-1984 and on the ground that there are verifiable allegations, he forwarded a copy of the complaint to the director of Medical Education to have a probe made into the matter and send a report. He also gave an opportunity to the complainant to appear before him and file Forms I and II and he dispensed with the deposit necessary to be made by the complainant under the Rules. The Lokayukta got a preliminary verification done by the Investigating Officer Sri P. Koteswara Rao and on the basis of the investigating Officer s report, which was submitted on 28-12-1985, passed proceedings dated 31-8-1986 to the following effect:"since I am satisfied that there is prime facie case on the above four allegations, I propose to hold final investigation against the said public servant in respect of the said four allegations only. I, therefore, direct the Registrar and the legal section of this Institution. to take all necessary setps to conduct the final investigation. I further direct that notice be sent to Sekhar The complainant, who has personally appeared before me. Since allegations 9,10 and 11 were found out during preliminary probe, to that extent, this investigation will be suo motu. "in spite of an opportunity being given to C. Sekhar, he has not come forward and he did not give evidence. Then on 11-4-1986, the Lokayukta passed another order in the following terms: "i decide to hold suo motu investigation in respect of allegation No. 1 also. " he further observed that he would treat the other three allegations which are extraneous to the complaint sent by C. Sekhar and which were made out by the investigatingofficer s preliminary verification as having been taken cognizance of suo motu and order suo motu investigation. Accordingly Form No. VII was issued to the present respondent Dr. B. Seshadri and then the present writ petitions were filed questioning the action taken by the Lokayukta.

( 3 ) THE learned single judge came to the conclusion that as the formalities of a complaint are not complied with in this case and as there is no compliance of section 9 (2) of the Act and Rule 3 of the Rules, the only course open to the lokayukta is to dismiss the complaintin limine and drop all further proceedings. The Lokayukta is not justified in embarking upon a roving enquiry and then initiating action as suo motu proceedings. In that view of the matter, the learned single judge allowed both the writ petitions and quashed the proceedings. Aggrieved by the same, the present appeals are filed by the Lokayukta.

( 4 ) SRI K. Subramanya Reddy, the l

Click Here to Read the rest of this document