Back
2003 Supreme(Del) 542
High Court Of Delhi
ASHOK KUMAR TYAGI - Appellant
Versus
LOKAYUKTA - Respondent
CIV.WRIT PETITION 6562 of 2002
Decided On : 05/30/2003
AVINISH AHLAVAT, G.S.SISTANI, PARAG P.TRIPATHI, Rashmi Chopra
The main legal point established in the judgment is the interpretation of the Lokayukta's jurisdiction and the definition of 'public functionary' under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995.
Headnote:
Lokayukta - Powers and Jurisdiction - Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 - Section 7, Section 8, Section 9, Section 2(b), Section 2(m) - The Lokayukta's jurisdiction, powers, and limitations were discussed in relation to the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner challenged the Lokayukta's order to cancel a liquor vend license granted to a corporation, questioning the Lokayukta's powers and jurisdiction. The petitioner was one of the co-owners of the property where the vend was located.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta's actions were without jurisdiction as the Commissioner of Excise, who granted the license, did not fall under the definition of 'public functionary' as per the Act. The court also held that the petitioner had no locus standi to challenge the license cancellation.
Issues: The issues involved the Lokayukta's jurisdiction, the definition of 'public functionary' under the Act, and the petitioner's standing to challenge the license cancellation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of the Act's provisions regarding the Lokayukta's jurisdiction and the definition of 'public functionary'. The court emphasized that the Lokayukta must act within the parameters laid down in the Act.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of with the observation that the Lokayukta's orders were without jurisdiction, and the petitioner had no standing to challenge the license cancellation. The court directed the Excise Department to reconsider the matter without being influenced by the Lokayukta's orders.
( 1 ) IN this writ petition the petitioner has raised an issue with respect to the powers and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as the Act for short ). It may be mentioned at this stage itself that the Lokayukta has initiated suo motu proceedings taking cognizance of L-2 vend opened at Hans Bhawan and after inquiry passed order dated 19. 9. 20002 directing Excise Department/respondent No. 3 to issue order for cancellation of the said vend. Based thereon respondent No. 3 passed order dated 27. 9. 2002 cancelling this vend. It is in this context that powers of the lokayukta to pass such an order is questioned. At this stage, brief facts of the case are noted.
( 2 ) THE petitioner is one of the co-owner of the property bearing No. Lower ground Floor-1, Hans Bhawan, Bahadurshah Zafar Marg, New Delhi. This building as is well-known is a commercial building. Vide public notice dated 13/14. 2. 1999 delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd. /respondent No. 4 invited offers for shops/premises for running of Wine and Beer shops. Petitioner and co-owners offered aforesaid premises to Respondent No. 4 for opening of L-2 vend licence of which was to be obtained by the Respondent No. 4. Their case was processed. No objection Certificate from Area MLA was also obtained. For running Wine and Beer shop, the petitioner and co-owner applied. However, the matter was not finalised. In the meantime, Delhi Government came out with liberalised Excise Policy in the year 2000-2001 and after the commencement of this Policy, public notice inviting tenders were again offered on 4. 2. 2000. The petitioner along with his co-owners again applied on 19. 2. 2002. Area MLA also issued "no Objection Certificate" for opening the vend at the place offered by the petitioner. In the meantime, on 4. 7. 2002 liberalised Excise Policy of the year 2002-2003 was announced. The Government decided to open 5 liquor vends in addition to the existing vends, subject to a ceiling of 70 new vends during the current year. As per the Policy, shops were to be opened in public sector only and "noc" from the area MLA was not required. The petitioner s shop was approved for L-2 vend and a Rent Agreement dated 16. 8. 2002 was signed between the petitioner and Respondent No. 4. Within few days of opening of this vend, Lokayukta initiated suo motu proceedings and took cognizance of the aforesaid L-2 vend opened at Hans Bhawan. He issued notices to Respondent nos. 2 and 3 and called for the record to examine as to under what circumstances said vend was allowed to be opened. On 8. 8. 2002, he passed an order observing that opening of this vend at the said place was contrary to Rules. On 25. 9. 2002 the finance Minister filed a detailed affidavit before the Lokayukta reiterating government s stand that action of Excise Department in granting L-2 Licence was perfectly valid and only after four and half months of inquiry the said licence was granted to the petitioner. After this affidavit was filed, proceedings were concluded by the Lokayukta.
( 3 ) APPREHENDING the closure on the basis of order passed on 19. 9. 2002 by the lokayukta, the petitioner filed CWP No. 6067/2002 in this Court. After hearing arguments on 27. 9. 2002 the matter was adjourned to 30. 9. 2002. However, on 27. 9. 2002 order was passed by the Excise Department for cancelling L-2 vend given to respondent No. 4 and on 28. 9. 2002 this vend was closed. Challenging these orders, present petition is preferred.
( 4 ) SOME of the proceedings before the Lokayukta which include orders dated 13. 9. 2002 and 19. 9. 2002 are placed on record. A perusal of these orders would show that undisputedly it is the suo motu cognizance which was taken by the Lokayukta regarding opening of an IMFL L-2 vend. Order dated 8. 8. 2002 was passed by the lokayukta in this respect asking Delhi Finance and Excise Minister to explain under what circumstances a l
