Ashok B. Hinchigeri, J.

1. The petitioners have called into question the order, dated 3-10-2016 (Annexure-S) and 22-12-2016 (Annexure-T) passed by the respondents 1 and 2 respectively. Annexure-S is a report of the Upa-lokayukta under Section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('the said Act' for short) recommending to the Competent Authority to initiate the enquiry proceedings against the petitioners and for the entrustment of the enquiry to the Lokayukta under Rule 14-A of the Karnataka Civil Services (Classification, Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957. Annexure-T is the order entrusting enquiry to the Upa-lokayukta. Sri Subramanya Jois, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for Sri G.T. Kumar for the petitioners submits that the copies of the complaints filed by one Saidutta are not furnished to the petitioners. He submits that the requirements of Section 9(3)(a) of the said Act are not complied with. In support of his submission, he relies on this Court's decision in the case of N. Gundappa v. State of Karnataka, ILR 1990 Kar. 223. Section 9(3)(a) of the said Act reads as follows:

"9. Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.-.....

(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he.-

(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint and in the case of an investigation initiated suo motu by him, the opinion recorded by him to initiate the investigation under sub-section (1) or (2), as the case may be, of Section 7 to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned."

2. Nextly he argues that the Competent Authority has not considered the petitioners' reply filed before the Enquiry Officer. He submits that the impugned order, dated 22-12-2016 (Annexure-T) is not a speaking order; it is not reflective of the application of mind; he contends that every State action has to be informed by reasons; any act uninformed by reasons is arbitrary and hence violative of the rule of law. For advancing this submission, he relies upon the Apex Court's judgment in the case of Ravi Yashwant Bhoir v. District Collector, Raigad and Others, AIR 2012 SC 1339 : 2012 (2) SLT 485 : 2012 (3) SCJ 775 : (2012) 4 SCC 407.

3. Sri D. Ashwathappa, the learned Additional Government Advocate appearing for the respondent 1 submits that the impugned orders do not determine the fate of the petitioners. They have not curtailed the rights of the petitioners in any way.

4. Sri G. Devaraj, the learned Counsel for the respondent 2 submits that three complaints are filed against the petitioners. In respect of Complaint No. 2214 of 2015, the notices accompanied by the complaint with supporting documents are sent to the petitioners on 15-7-2015 (Annexures-K, K1 and K2). In respect of the Complaint No. 1361 of 2015, the petitioners have already taken part in the proceedings after receiving the copies of the complaint and the supporting documents. He submits that nowhere in the proceedings they have raised the objection that they have not been given the copies of the complaint. In support of his contention, he also produced the copy of the order sheet in Misc. No. 1361 of 2015, which is duly signed by the petitioners. He makes similar submissions and produced similar documents in respect of Complaint No. 1362 of 2015.

5. The submissions of the learned Counsel have received our thoughtful consideration. The first question that arises for our consideration is whether the requirement of Section 9(3) of the said Act is complied with?

6. The petitioners themselves have referred to the receipt of the notice in paragraph 15 of the memorandum of the writ petitions. It is not in dispute that the receipt of the copies is in Complaint No. 2214 of 2015. The petitioners have signed the order sheet in the proceedings in Complaint Nos. 1361 and 1362 of 2015. The perusal of the order sheet further reveals that the petitioners have undertaken to submit the action take