( 1 ) THE present petition raises the question about the scope and ambit of the powers and extent of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" ). The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the report of the Lokayukta on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations against the private individuals nor could be widen the scope of inquiry so as to inquire into a matter for which he has not issued notice to the public functionaries. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations made against a public functionary in relation to whom either the President or the Lieutenant Governor is the competent authority. The public functionary is defined in Section 2 (m) of the Act and the same does not include any private individual or a company which is not a Government company. The "allegations" into which the inquiry can be initiated by the Lokayukta are defined in Section 2 (b) of the Act. The challenge of the petitioner to the report of the Lokayukta, therefore, is that as under the Act he had no jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged allegations against the petitioner, which is a private company and the report submitted by him casting aspersions upon the petitioner is liable to be quashed. It is also the case of the petitioner that even otherwise the procedure followed by the Lokayukta while inquiring into the allegations was in violation of the principles of natural justice and on the basis of this procedure, which is not known to law, the reputation of the petitioner has been tarnished and though by Section 15 of the Act jurisdiction of the Court is barred from questioning the report, the petitioner has still challenged the report on the ground that the judicial review being a part of the basic structure of Constitution cannot be whittelled down in any manner whatsoever and in any case since the report is without jurisdiction, Section 15 of the Act would not bar the filing of the present petition. A few facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition may be summarised as under :-

RESPONDENT No. 2, the Delhi Jal Board, awarded three contracts of laying the trunk sewer by trenchless technology to the petitioner. Taking suo moto action on a news item reported in daily English newspaper "the Pioneer", the Lokayukta issued notices to the Chief Minister of Delhi as well as the Officer on Special Duty in her office to file reply to the allegations made in the notice. The order passed by the Lokayukta issuing notice requiring the Chief Minister of Delhi and OSD to file reply, read as under :- 1. The Lokayukta acting under his suo-moto powers take cognizance of news item reported in the English daily newspaper "the Pioneer" dated September20, 2000 in which charges of corruption have been levelled against the OSD to the Hon ble Chief Minister. The allegations broadly put are these; (i) That on May 21, a resolution was put up for approval of setting up 58 metres of 2200 mm Dia pipe at the rate of 2. 05 lakh per metre calling a tender, and later on the work was awarded to m/s. Chemcon, a French Company. (ii) That a similar type of work on the Ring Road was awarded to m/s. Werm India Ltd. , a sister concern of M/s. Chemcon, at the rate of Rs. 1. 92 lakh per metre, the total estimated cost of that work was rs. 11 crores, and that this contract also was awarded without calling any tender. (iii) That on a protest of favouritism raised by an Indian firm, a work contract at a lower tender rate of Rs. 92,000/- per metre was awarded to M/s. Advance Ocean Ltd. , the total cost of the project was Rs. 12 crores. (iv) That in the last tender in Division IV, "werm India" had quoted the rate of Rs. 56,000/- per metre for the same work which the firm had executed at the rate of Rs. 2. 05 lakh per metre. 2. The news report is based on a statement made by Sh. Jagdish Anand, Member of Legisl