Vilas V. Afzulpurkar, J.

1. A Division Bench of this Court vide order dated 14.06.2013 has disagreed with the view expressed by the earlier Division Bench in A.P.S.F.D. & W ASSOCIATION v. DISTRICT COLLECTOR, VISAKHAPATNAM (2010 (2) ALT 246 (DB) and referred questions a to c to be heard and decided by a larger Bench. In terms of the said order of reference, this writ petition is posted before us and we are required to answer the questions framed in the order of reference. The questions for consideration are extracted hereunder:

a. Whether A.P. Lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, which does not involve an allegation, or a complaint regarding non-implementation of an order of a Magistrate in a matrimonial dispute between a wife and husband, or any other dispute inter se private individuals, and pass consequential orders?

b. Whether the A.P. Lokayukta can issue directions or pass an order directly against the persons mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 7(1) of the Act?

c. Whether A.P. Lokayukta can take action suo motu under the Act?

2. The brief facts of the case are succinctly set out in the order of reference. Hence, for the sake of convenience, the facts, as set out in the order, are reproduced hereunder:

2. The brief facts of the case are as under:

The petitioner and respondent No.3, who are said to be doctors by profession, got married on 23-06-2002 at Sri Satyasai Nigamagamam Kalyana Mandapam, Hyderabad, and out of their wedlock, they begot two children. Thereafter, disputes arose between them and respondent No.3 filed D.V.C.No.390 of 2012 on the file of III Metropolitan Magistrate, Hyderabad; Crime No.457 of 2012 on the file Women Police Station, CCS, DD, Hyderabad for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 420 IPC and Sections 4 and 6 of the Dowry Prohibition Act; Crime No.94 of 2012 on the file of CID Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 403, 409, 418, 420, 468, 471 read with 120-B of IPC; Crime No.383 of 2012 on the file of Kachiguda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Section 506 IPC and Crime No.421 of 2012 on the file of Narayanaguda Police Station, Hyderabad, for the offences punishable under Sections 418 and 420 of IPC. Apart from that, civil cases are pending between them.

3. Respondent No.3 filed Crl.M.P.No.1317 of 2012 in D.V.C.No.390 of 2012, seeking protection order. The learned Magistrate, by order dated 13-12-2012, disposed of the said Crl.M.P. directing the respondents therein i.e., the petitioner herein and his family members, to allot and allocate two bedrooms, drawing hall, dining and kitchen with three bathrooms to the petitioner in the 2nd floor of the house for exclusive occupation of the petitioner and her children and consequently restrain the respondents or any of their relatives from entering into such allotted and allocated portions. He directed the protection officer to implement the order and to file report by the next date of hearing. Subsequently, the learned Magistrate, by order dated 16-01-2013, made the interim order dated 13-12-2012 absolute, but with a slight modification that the petitioner and her children shall use two bathrooms only preferably those that are attached to the two bedrooms allotted to her and further both parties are directed not to create any problems to each other and maintain peace and harmony while residing in the shared household until furthers. He directed the protection officer to implement the said orders forthwith without any delay and to report the same to the Court as early as possible, and also observed that derogation in implementation of the said order will be viewed seriously. The Protection Officer was given liberty to take the assistance of concerned police for implementation of the order.

4. However, complaining non-implementation of the said order, respondent No.3 filed complaint No.3093/2012/B1 before respondent No.1 i.e., A.P. Lokayukta, stating that in spite of