These writ appeals are preferred against the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 2nd of March, 2016 in W.P. No. 58103/2015 dismissing the writ petition preferred by the appellant as not maintainable and consequently dismissing five interlocutory applications which were listed before him on that day.

2. The appellant is presently the incumbent Upa-Lokayukta in the State of Karnataka. His case is after a span of over 20 years of law practice, he was appointed as a Judge of the Karnataka High Court in the year 2006. He was appointed as Upa-Lokayukta in the year 2013 under the provisions of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short hereinafter referred as ‘the Act’) and he continues to hold the said office since then.

3. It is his further case that a notice of motion signed by 78 members of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly has been given to the Hon’ble Speaker for his removal as Upa-Lokayukta on 27.11.2015. The information of the said notice of motion was not officially conveyed to him. The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta sent a communication dated 30.11.2015 to the 1st respondent-the Secretary, Karnataka Legislative Assembly to know about the notice of motion dated 27.11.2015 which was widely published. The Registrar of Karnataka Lokayukta received the motion communication dated 30.11.2015 on 4.12.2015. The said communication informs that “a motion for removal of Justice Subhash B. Adi, Hon’ble Upa-Lokayukta was moved in the Karnataka Legislative Assembly by Shri Tanvir Sait, Hon’ble Member of the Karnataka Legislative Assembly on 27.11.2015”. Thereafter, it proceeds to draw attention to Sub-section (14) of Section 6 of the Act which provides that when such a motion is moved before the House or the Houses of the State Legislature for his removal, the Upa-Lokayukta is precluded from discharging his duties during the pendency of the motion for his removal before the House or Houses of the State Legislature. It is submitted that contrary to what has been stated in the aforesaid communication at Annexure-A, records disclose that on 27.11.2015 the Hon’ble Member of the Legislative Assembly had given the notice of motion to the Speaker and on the same day, the Speaker has admitted the notice of motion. Even after such admission, the 1st respondent has been corresponding with many persons and has been collecting/gathering information and material against the appellant. In this regard, the correspondence between the respondents and the Registrar of Lokayukta are collectively produced as Annexure-C. Therefore, the appellant preferred writ petition seeking quashing of the communication dated 3.12.2015 issued by the 1st respondent vide Annexure-A and also sought a declaration that the respondents are not empowered to seek any information from any source after the notice of motion is admitted. He also sought for an interim order in the like terms. This writ petition came to be filed on 17.12.2015.

4. The said writ petition came up for consideration in Preliminary Hearing before the learned Single Judge on 18.12.2015. On 18.12.2015, after hearing the learned Senior Counsel for the appellant as well as the learned Advocate General for the State, the submission of the learned Advocate General on the instructions of the Secretary of the Speaker to the effect that on examination of Annexure-A, which is impugned in the writ petition would not indicate that it precludes Upa-Lokayukta from discharging the duties as at present. The said submission was recorded and time was granted to file statement of objections.

5. The respondent filed a statement of objections on 31.12.2015. In fact, what they filed according to them was a preliminary objections and they reserved the liberty to file a detailed statement of objections. It is submitted that as can be noticed from the reading of the prayers and the averments in support thereof, it would indicate that the petitioner has moved the Writ Petition, on an assumption that ‘the notice of m