S. MURALIDHAR

W.P.(C) Nos. 1136, 3342 and 3345 of 2010 & CM Nos. 4290, 6722, 6725, 13760 & 13761 of 2010.

1. These three petitions involve the interpretation of Sections 2(m) (iv) and 17 of the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 („DLAU Act'). Background

2. The background to these petitions is that Shri Ravinder Balwani (the Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 1136 of 2010) filed a complaint before the Lokayukta complaining of Shri R.K. Saxena (the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1136 of 2010) of misusing his official position as Director (Administrative) as well as Director (HR) of Delhi Transco Ltd. („DTL') for personal benefit. Balwani's specific case was that Saxena being the Director of DTL, a company owned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi („GNCTD') was a „public functionary' within the meaning of Section 2(m) (iv) of the DLAU Act.

3. In response to the above complaint Saxena took the plea that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction over Saxena under Section 17 of the DLAU Act since Saxena was a member of the Indian Administrative Services („IAS') and that it was in that capacity he was sent on deputation to the DTL as Director (Administrative) & Director (HR). Saxena's case was that he did not lack immunity from jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under Section 17 only because he was a Director of a company owned by the GNCTD.

4. By an order dated 5th February 2010, the Lokayukta came to the conclusion that the preliminary objection raised by Saxena was without merit. It was held that the provision of Section 17 could not be used to defeat the provision of Section 2(m)(iv) of the DLAU Act unless it was impossible to effect reconciliation between the two provisions. The Lokayukta found that it was possible to reconcile the two provisions as a result of which “only those Members of the Civil Services of the Union, who are appointed as Chairman, Vice-Chairman or Managing Director or a Member of the Board of Directors in respect of Apex Cooperative Society or any Cooperative Society or Government Company, Local Authority, Corporation or Commission or Body set up by the Government would be covered within the definition of „public functionary' but the other/remaining Members of Civil Service would be excluded from the said definition.” In other words, the Lokayukta held that once an IAS officer is appointed as Director of a company such IAS officer would lose immunity under Section 17 of the DLAU Act and would be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta for the acts done by him in his capacity as Director of such government owned company.

5. Aggrieved by the above decision, Saxena filed Writ Petition (C) No. 1136 of 2010 in this Court in which while directing notice to issue on 24th February 2010, this Court stayed the order dated 5th February 2010 of the Lokayukta.

6. The background to the filing of Writ Petition (C) No. 3345 of 2010 is that B.K.Sharma filed a complaint against Saxena before the Lokayukta on similar lines as Balwani. The Lokayukta proceeded to entertain the complaint, notwithstanding that Saxena produced before the Lokayukta the order dated 24th February 2010 passed by this Court in Writ Petition (C) No. 1136 of 2010. The present writ petition was filed seeking stay of further proceedings. While directing notice to issue on 17th May 2010, this Court stayed further proceedings in the complaint titled “Shri B.K. Sharma v. Shri R.K. Saxena” pending before the Lokayukta.

7. In Writ Petition (C) No. 3342 of 2010, the Respondent R.N. Bararia filed a complaint against the Petitioner Chetan B. Sanghi, a member of the IAS, who was serving on deputation as Chairman-cum-Managing Director, Delhi State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation („DSIIDC') before the Lokayukta complaining of abusing his position for improper and corrupt motives within the meaning of Section 2(b)(ii) of the DLAU ACT. The Lokayukta proceeded to entertain the complaint and summoned the