Back
2023 Supreme(Bom) 832
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
B.P.Colabawalla, J.
Cynthia Fernandes – Appellant
Versus
Goa Lokayukta – Respondent
Writ Petition No. 2127 of 2022 (F)
Decided On : 02-03-2023
Vibhav Amonkar, Advocate, Shivdatt P.Munj, Advocate, Ivan Santimano, Advocate, Ashwin D.Bhobe, Advocate, Shaizeen Shaikh, Advocate, Abhishek Sawant, Advocate
The court's decision was based on the finding that the directions issued by the Goa Lokayukta were beyond its scope and jurisdiction as defined by the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 and the Goa Lokayukta Rules, 2012.
Headnote:
Jurisdiction - Goa Lokayukta Act - The court quashed an ex-parte ad-interim order issued by the Goa Lokayukta, stating that the directions given were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 and the Goa Lokayukta Rules, 2012.
Fact of the Case:
The Writ Petition challenged an ex-parte ad-interim order issued by the Goa Lokayukta, contending that the directions given were beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 and the Goa Lokayukta Rules, 2012.
Finding of the Court:
The court allowed the Writ Petition, quashed the impugned order, and clarified that the quashing of the order did not preclude other authorities from continuing with proceedings already initiated.
Issues: Scope and jurisdiction of the Goa Lokayukta Act and Rules
Ratio Decidendi: The directions passed by the Goa Lokayukta were found to be beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Goa Lokayukta Act and Rules, leading to the quashing of the impugned order.
Final Decision: The Writ Petition was allowed, the impugned order was quashed, and the court clarified that the quashing of the order did not preclude other authorities from continuing with proceedings already initiated.
JUDGMENT
1. Rule. With the consent of Parties, Rule made returnable forthwith and heard finally.
2. The present Writ Petition impugns the order dtd. 9/9/2022 passed by the Goa Lokayukta [Respondent No. 1] in Proceeding No. 3/2022 wherein the Goa Lokayukta has passed an ex-parte ad-interim order issuing certain directions to Respondent No. 5 [Director of Municipal Administration].
3. On 6/10/2022, this Court had stayed the implementation and execution of the impugned order till further orders and issued notice to all the Respondents. Accordingly, all the Respondents are represented by their respective Advocates.
4. The impugned order dtd. 9/9/2022 issues certain interim directions to the Director of Municipal Administration to take suitable action after hearing all the interested parties and pass an order within 30 days and report the action taken before the next date. It is contended by the Petitioner, and which according to me, is correct that the directions passed vide the impugned order are beyond the scope and jurisdiction of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 and the Goa Lokayukta Rules, 2012.
5. In the above circumstances, the present Writ Petition is allowed and Proceeding No. 3/2022 pending before the Institution of the Goa Lokayukta including the impugned order dtd. 9/9/2022 passed by the Goa Lokayukta are quashed and set aside.
6. It is informed that the Chief Officer of Curchorem Municipal Council has already commenced proceedings in respect of the allegations made by Respondent No. 2 in respect of the alleged illegal construction carried out by the Petitioner, independent of the impugned order. It is clarified that the present order quashing the impugned order passed by the Goa Lokayukta shall not in any way preclude the Chief Officer of Curchorem Municipal Council and/or any other Authority from continuing with the proceedings already initiated and take them to its logical conclusions.
7. Rule is made absolute in the aforesaid terms and the Writ Petition is disposed of in terms thereof. No order as to costs.
8. This order will be digitally signed by the Private Secretary/ Personal Assistant of this Court. All concerned will act on production by fax or email of a digitally signed copy of this order.
