The mandatory nature of the provisions of Section 9 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984, and the requirement to comply with the procedure for conducting investigations, including providing a copy of the complaint and affording an opportunity to offer comments, as failure to do so leads to the invalidity of the report.

( 1 ) AT the stage of Preliminary Hearing, on the direction of the Court, respondents 1 and 4 have put in appearance through Sri N. Devadas, learned Government Advocate and respondents 2 and 3 have put in appearance through Sri R. C. Castelino, learned Standing counsel for the Corporation of the City of bangalore. Respondents 1 and 4 have filed a common statement of objections concerning this writ petition and W. P. Nos. 18405 and 18415 of 1988. The learned Government advocate has also produced the records of the case. Thus the petition is ready for final disposal. Hence Rule is issued and the petition is heard for final disposal.

( 2 ) IN this petition under Article 226 of the Constitution, the petitioner has sought for quashing the order dated 16-2-1989 passed by the Commissioner, Corporation of the City of Bangalore in No. PS. I. PA/8/88- 89 produced as Annexure-E. This order is passed pursuant to the direction issued by the State Government in its order dated 31-10-1988.

( 3 ) THE petitioner is a Record-cum-Stores officer in the Corporation of the City of bangalore. By the impugned order, he is placed under suspension along with another person by name Sri M. S. Basavarajappa, who is stated to be a relation of the petitioner on the ground that a report is made by the Upa- lokayukta that the petitioner is possessed of assets and liabilities disproportionate to his known source of income. It is relevant to notice that in respect of the officers of the corporation of the City of Bangalore, the state Government becomes a Competent authority if a proceeding is initiated under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the 'act') and a report is submitted to the Government in respect of the officers of the Corporation. That is what has been done in the instant case. On the basis of the report dated 9th september 1988 bearing No. COMPT/ uplok/138/85-86 made by the Upa- lokayukta, the State Government has informed the Corporation that there is a prima facie case against the petitioner to proceed against him and it has accordingly directed the Commissioner of Corporation, to place the petitioner and Sri M. S. Basavarajappa under suspension. The Commissioner of the corporation of the City of Bangalore, pursuant to the order of the State Government has placed them under suspension.

( 4 ) THE contention of the petitioner is that 'upa Lokayukta' has made a report on the basis of the complaint made by one Sri Nana rao, and in such a case, provisions of Section 9 of the Act are attracted, therefore, a copy of the complaint ought to have been furnished to the petitioner, and he ought to have been given an opportunity to offer his comments on the complaint as required by subsection (3) of Section 9 of the Act; that failure to do so has vitiated the report of the upalokayukta. Consequently, it is submitted that the order passed by the State Government is liable to be quashed.

( 5 ) ON the contrary, it is contended on behalf of the respondents that the petitioner was afforded an opportunity in as much as the Enquiry Officer who was directed to investigate into the complaint, did call for the particulars of the properties and other assets of the petitioner and accordingly, the petitioner furnished the details of the properties and all other assets and thereafter further information was also called for by the deputy Superintendent of Police as per An- nexure-D dated 21-8-1987 and the petitioner furnished further details which were also taken into consideration. Thus, on the information gathered during the course of investigation, a report was made by upalokayukta. Therefore, it is the ease of the respondents that the requirement of subsection (3) of Section 9 of the Act are substantially complied with.

( 6 ) IN the light of the aforesaid contentions, the following points arise for consideration. 1) What is the scope and ambit of Section 9 of the Act? 2) Whether the provisions of sub-section (3) of Section 9 of the A