SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
judgment-img

1990 Supreme(Kar) 4

M.RAMAKRISHNA RAO, S.MOHAN
STATE OF KARNATAKA – Appellant
Versus
N. GUNDAPPA – Respondent


MOHAN, C. J.

( 1 ) WE have not the slightest hesitation in holding that the proceedings under Section 9 of the karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 are quasi judicial in nature. Our reasons are as under: firstly there is a complaint. Secondly there is a preliminary enquiry to conduct investigation. Thirdly a copy of the complaint is forwarded to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned. Fourthly the public servant is afforded an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint. Thereafter should the Lokayukta submit a report as to what consequences follow are delineated under Section 13 of the Act. Having regard to the serious consequences contemplated thereunder, the conclusion is inescapable that it is quasi judicial in nature. Not only that, Section 14 of the Act also contemplates initiation of prosecution.

( 2 ) ACCORDINGLY, we agree with the learned single Judge and dismiss this Writ Appeal.

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon telegram-icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top