Back
1984 Supreme(Bom) 283
IN THE HIGH COURT OF BOMBAY
C.S. Dharmadhikari H.H. Kantharia, JJ.
Vishwasrao Chudaman Patil (Dr.) ... Petitioner.
Versus
Lok Ayukta, State of Maharashtra others ... Respondents.
Writ Petition No. 3169 of 1984, decided on 29-9-1984.
Advocates appeared :
Smt. Indira Jaising and Nirmalkumar Suryavanshi, for petitioner.
C.R. Dalvi with K.Y. Mandlik, for respondent No. 2.
A.V. Sawant with M.F. Saldanha, A.G.P. for respondent No. 3.
Atul Setalvad, appointed amicus curiae, for respondent No. 1.
Headnote:
LOKAYUKTA - JURISDICTION - COMPLAINT - GRIEVANCE - ALLEGATION - MALADMINISTRATION - RULE 35 OF MAHARASHTRA LOKAYUKTA AND UPA-LOKAYUKTAS RULES, 1976 - VALIDITY - INTERIM STAY ORDER - WRIT PETITION - LOCUS STANDI - MAHARASHTRA LOKAYUKTA AND UPA-LOKAYUKTAS ACT, 1971 (MAHARASHTRA ACT 34 OF 1971), SEC. 2(B), 2(D), 8(1)(A), 8(1)(B), 10(6), 20(1).
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner, who was appointed as an Honorary Paediatrician in a Government Hospital, challenged the order of the Lokayukta staying his appointment on a complaint filed by another candidate alleging maladministration in the selection process. The petitioner contended that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint as it related to an action specified in the Third Schedule and the complainant had an alternate remedy by way of a writ petition or a suit. He also challenged the validity of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Rules, 1976, which empowered the Lokayukta to grant interim stay orders.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the complaint filed by the complainant was not barred by the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) or (b) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971, as it involved an 'allegation' within the meaning of Section 2(b) and not merely a 'grievance' under Section 2(d). The Court further held that Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Rules, 1976, was intra vires the powers conferred on the Governor under Section 20(1) of the Act and empowered the Lokayukta to make interim recommendations, which were not binding orders but required action by the competent authority. The Court also held that the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the order of the Lokayukta as he was directly affected by the interim stay order.
Issues: 1. Whether the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint filed by the complainant? 2. Whether Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Rules, 1976, was ultra vires the powers conferred on the Governor under Section 20(1) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971? 3. Whether the petitioner had locus standi to challenge the order of the Lokayukta?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to entertain a complaint is not ousted by the provisions of Section 8(1)(a) or (b) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971, if the complaint involves an 'allegation' within the meaning of Section 2(b) and not merely a 'grievance' under Section 2(d). 2. Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Rules, 1976, is intra vires the powers conferred on the Governor under Section 20(1) of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971, and empowers the Lokayukta to make interim recommendations, which are not binding orders but require action by the competent authority. 3. A person directly affected by an interim stay order issued by the Lokayukta has locus standi to challenge the order.
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the writ petition and upheld the order of the Lokayukta staying the petitioner's appointment.
Key Points: - The Lokayukta’s jurisdiction to entertain complaints when the matter involves an "allegation" under Section 2(b) and not merely a "grievance" under Section 2(d) is affirmed. (!) - Rule 35 is held intra vires the Governor’s power under Section 20(1) and authorizes interim recommendations, which are not binding but require action by the competent authority. (!) - A person directly affected by an interim stay order has locus standi to challenge the Lokayukta’s order. (!) - Rule 35 permits interim directives that the status quo be maintained, interpreted in the context of enabling effective investigation and final reporting under Section 12. (!) (!) - The petitioner’s writ petition challenging the Lokayukta’s stay order is dismissed with the rule discharged. (!)
What is the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to entertain a complaint under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971?
What is the validity and scope of Rule 35 of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Rules, 1976 regarding interim stay or interim recommendations?
What is the locus standi of a petitioner or third party to challenge an interim stay order issued by the Lokayukta?
2. Thereafter the Lokayukta issued a notice, dated 2nd May, 1984 to the petitioner, informing him that a complaint had been filed by respondent No. 2 Dr. Mudholkar, challenging his appointment. The petitioner was asked to remain present on 17th May, 1984 before the Lokayukta when the further hearing of the complaint was to take place. The petitioner appeared before the Lokayukta on 17th May, 1984, obtained copies of the complaint and other documents as filed by the complainant, respondent No. 2, in support of his complaint. He also filed his say. Then the hearing of the case was adjourned to 12th June 1984, for the determination of the issue as to whether the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint of respondent No. 2, in view of section 8 of the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1971.
3. It is the case of the petitioner that in his written say, he had raised a contention that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint in view of the various provisions of the Lokayukta Act. The Lokayukta heard the parties on this preliminary issue on 12th June, 1984 and passed an order, holding that the complaint filed by the complainant can be entertained and investigated into by the Lokayukta. Thereafter the case was adjourned for hearing on merits. It is this order of the Lokayukta, negativing the preliminary objection raised by the petitioner and the concerned public servants, which is challenged in this writ petition by the petitioner on various ground.
4. Smt. Indira Jaising, the learned Counsel appearing for the petitioner, contended before us that if the complaint filed by the respondent No. 2 Dr. Mudholkar is read as a whole, it only discloses, that Dr. Mudholkar had a grievance in the matter, within the meaning of the said expression as defined in section (d). As the said grievance related to an action taken in respect of an appointment, the said complaint was wholly barred by section 8(1)(a) read with Item (d) of the Third Schedule and, therefore, the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint. Even otherwise, such a complaint could not have been entertained by the Lokayukta in view of the provisions of section 8(1) (b) of the Act since Mr. Mudholkar had an alternated remedy of filing a writ petition before the High Court or a suit before the Civil Court. None of the averments made in the complaint amounted to an 'allegation' within the meaning of the said expression as defined in section 2(b) of the Act and, therefore, the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to entertain the complaint itself, much less to pass an interim order to stay. She then contended that assum
