IMPORTANT POINT
Important Point : The Lokayukta lacks jurisdiction to resolve civil disputes already pending before other courts, and must adhere to principles of natural justice.

JUDGMENT :

(M.S. Sonak J.) :

1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.

2. Rule. The Rule is made returnable immediately at the request of and with the consent of the learned counsel for the parties.

3. The challenge in this Petition is to the portion of the Lokayukta’s order dated 6 December 2019 to the extent it directs Shree Someshwar Sahakari Sakhar Karkhana Ltd. (Respondent No.2) not to pay price towards the supply of sugarcane to Bhiku Anna Tambe and Laxman Anna Tambe (Petitioners) and instead, to pay this amount to Ganpat Anna Tambe (Respondent No.1).

4. The record shows that the Petitioners, Bhiku Tambe and Laxman Tambe, are the brothers of Respondent No.1, Ganpat Tambe. They are involved in a pending dispute regarding inheritance, etc. This dispute, inter alia, concerns property bearing Gat Nos. 235, 272, and 209 at Jeur, Taluka Purandar, and District Pune (“said property”).

5. At one stage, Respondent No.2-Co-operative Society passed a Resolution not to accept sugarcane from either the Petitioners or Respondent No.1 on account of their inter se disputes. The Petitioners raised Dispute No.102 of 2017 before the Co-operative Court to challenge such a Resolution.

6. The Co-operative Court, by order dated 8 January 2018, has made an interim order restraining Respondent No.2—Co- operative Society from acting on its Resolution No.28 dated 22 April 2017 until the final decision of the dispute. The matter is still pending before the Co-operative Court.

7. Mr Gatne states that the dispute regards inheritance and the entitlement of the three brothers is also pending before the Civil Court.

8. Respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Lokayukta, alleging that the Talathi had prepared a fraudulent map in collusion with the Petitioners. Respondent No.2 alleged that based on this fraudulent map, the Petitioners obtained interim orders from the Co-operative Court. As a result of such interim order, Respondent No.2-Co-operative Society was paying the Petitioners for the sugarcane supplied through the property that actually belongs to Respondent No.1, i.e. Ganpat Anna Tambe.

9. The Lokayukta, by the impugned order dated 6 December 2019, found prima facie merit in the allegations made against the Talathi and, therefore, directed an enquiry to be held and completed within a time-bound period. The Petitioners do not challenge this portion of the impugned order. Mr Gatne states that there was no collusion, but in any event, if any enquiry is ordered against the Talathi, it is for the Talathi to face the same.

10. However, Mr Gatne submitted that the further direction issued by the Lokayukta to Respondent No.2 - Co-operative Society to withhold the payments to the Petitioners and instead, make such payments to Respondent No.1, i.e. Ganpat Anna Tambe is ex-facie without jurisdiction. He submitted that such a direction directly affecting the Petitioners was made in proceedings to which the Petitioners were not even impleaded as parties. Accordingly, Mr Gatne submits that the impugned directions are without jurisdiction and, in any event, since they were made without even minimum compliance with principles of natural justice and fair play, they ought to be interfered with.

11. Mr Dilip Bodake, learned counsel for Respondent No.1, submitted that an enquiry had already been made into the conduct of the Talathi in preparing the map. He submitted that in such enquiry, the Petitioners were also heard. He submitted that the Lokayukta has merely taken cognisance of this enquiry report and directed further action against the Talathi. He submitted that the consequential orders were intra vires and just in the circumstances.

12. Mr Bodake submitted that since the Petitioners were already heard during the enquiry against the Talathi, there was no reason to implead the Petitioners in the proceedings before the Lokayukta, and the Lokayukta has not breached the principles of natural justice by issuing consequential directions without hearing the Petitioners.

13. The