Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Honble Judges: Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J. and Neeraj Kishan Kaul, J.
Office of Lokayukta – Appellants
Vs.
Govt. of NCT of Delhi and Anr. – Respondent
L.P.A. No. 160/2009 and C.M. No. 5293/2009
Decided On: 14.05.2009
Lokayukta - Jurisdiction to Call for Records - The Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (Act for short) - Section 9, Section 10, Section 11, Section 13 - The Lokayukta has the power to inquire into complaints, and if necessary, use the services of investigative agencies deputed for the purpose. During the course of such inquiry, investigation is possible; so also, the power to call for documents, have evidence recorded through commission, etc, is exercisable. However, the power of inquiry does not include a preliminary inquiry. In a complaint procedure, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has to, after satisfying itself about the compliance with procedural formalities, prescribed by the statute, issue notice to the respective parties. The inquiry begins thereafter and the powers under Section 11 are available, to aid the process of inquiry. At the 'pre-inquiry' stage, or processing of the complaint, there is no question of the Lokayukta calling for the records from an authority. The power to do so is available after issuance of notice; the Lokayukta may, in a given case, issue notice and also call for the records, having regard to the circumstances, and the need to ensure that the documents are preserved or secured. In a suo motu proceeding, the Lokayukta does not have to satisfy itself about compliance regarding the complaint - it can straightaway proceed to issue notice, and exercise powers under Section 11; Section 10 enacts procedural flexibility, in regard to holding of inquiries. Yet, it sets out the standard of fairness, i.e. compliance with principles of natural justice. This provision underlines that the Lokayukta, though a judicial or quasi judicial body, is not really a court. It can evolve a fair procedure, having regard to the peculiar needs of a given case, or given class of cases which may present a common feature or peculiarity.
Fact of the Case:
A complaint was filed with the Lokayukta regarding the purchase of Low-Floor buses by the Government of Delhi. The Lokayukta directed the Government to produce records related to the tender process. The Government objected to the notice being issued on its own application, claiming that the Lokayukta should first decide on the question of maintainability of the complaint. The Government filed a writ petition seeking to quash the directions for production of records.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the Lokayukta has the power to inquire into complaints and call for documents, but the power of inquiry does not include a preliminary inquiry. The Lokayukta must issue notice to the respective parties and begin the inquiry before exercising powers to call for records. The court also emphasized the need for compliance with principles of natural justice and the flexibility in holding inquiries. The court rejected the objections raised by the State Government regarding the maintainability of the complaint, stating that the Lokayukta's proceedings are informal and not technical in nature.
Issues: The main issues were the Lokayukta's jurisdiction to call for records, the requirement of a preliminary inquiry before issuing notice, and the objections raised by the State Government regarding the maintainability of the complaint.
Ratio Decidendi: The Lokayukta has the power to inquire into complaints and call for documents, but the power of inquiry does not include a preliminary inquiry. The Lokayukta must issue notice to the respective parties and begin the inquiry before exercising powers to call for records. The Lokayukta's proceedings are informal and not technical in nature, and compliance with principles of natural justice is essential.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the order of the learned single Judge was set aside.
Ajit Prakash Shah, C.J.
.1. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2009 dated 13th March, 2009. By the order under appeal, the learned single Judge held that the Lokayukta is debarred from calling
.the records of any matter or case from the Government and its departments prior to issuance of notice to the public functionaries or what has been referred to as the pre-inquiry stage. The Lokayukta was directed that he shall first decide on the question of maintainability of the complaint and in case he decides to proceed with the matter, a formal notice shall be issued.
2. The facts necessary to decide the controversy in this case are set out as follows. A complaint was filed in the office of the Lokayukta on 8th October, 2008, under Section 9 of The Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (Act for short), inter alia, with regard to purchase of Low-Floor buses by the Government of Delhi. On 17th November, 2008, the complaint was taken up by the Lokayukta and directions were issued to the complainant. The Government was also directed to produce the records relating to the process of issuance of tenders for purchase of 625 Non-AC Low Floor CNG buses including the record containing the decision making process. The matter was taken up by the Lokayukta on 17th December, 2008, 9th January, 2009 and 15th January, 2009. On 17th December, 2008 and 15th January, 2009, the direction in respect of production of records was reiterated.
.3. On 22nd January, 2009, the complainant who had not appeared on two dates moved a formal application for permission to join in the proceedings. The Government, on the other hand, moved an application praying for dismissal of the complaint. Notice was issued in both the applications and the complainant as well as the Government were called upon to file their respective replies. The Government, however, objected to notice being issued on its own application on the ground that the application of the complainant to join the proceedings had not been decided and that the complainant had no locus to accept notice in the application of the Government. This objection was rejected by the Lokayukta as he was required to hear the complainant before deciding the issue of maintainability and the plea for dismissal of the complaint. 4. During the proceedings of 22nd January, 2009, the Government took a categorical stand that it would have no objection in producing records in a suo moto proceeding. By an order dated 28th January, 2009, the Lokayukta directed as under:
.12. Secretary, Department of transport or the Officer holding charge of the said Department personally to produce the above relevant records on 02.02.2009 at 2.00 PM failing which proceedings under Section 175 IPC shall be initiated against the persons committing the offence.
5. The Government claiming to be aggrieved, filed the writ petition inter-alia praying for quashing of the directions for production of records in the order dated 28th January, 2009, as is extracted above.
6. The findings of the learned single Judge are summarized in paragraph 34 of the order, which read as under:
34. To summarize the discussion, it is held that:
.(a) The Lokayukta and Upalokayukta have the power to inquire into complaints, and if necessary, use the services of investigative agencies deputed for the purpose. During the course of such inquiry, investigation is possible; so also, the power to call for documents, have evidence recorded through commission, etc, is exercisable. However, the power of inquiry does not include a preliminary inquiry.
.(b) In a complaint procedure, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has to, after satisfying itself about the compliance with procedural formalities, prescribed by the statute, issue notice to the respective parties. The inquiry begins thereafter and the powers under Section 11 are available, to aid the process of inquiry. At the "pre-inquiry" stage, or proc
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
