1. The Petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of Delhi, seeks the quashing of the proceedings before the Lokayukta, Delhi in Complaint No.C-236/Lok/2009 titled “Ramesh Thakur v. Sat Prakash Rana”. He also seeks the quashing of two separate orders dated 17th February 2010 passed by the Lokayukta in the said case.

2. Although the Lokayukta, Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No.1 in this writ petition and was also represented by counsel, this Court is of the view that an authority whose orders are under challenge, ought not to be made a party to the proceedings. This position is settled by the Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge Gorakhpur 1999 (2) SCC 577 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004) 2 SCC 473 and the Division Bench of this Court in Union Public Service Commission v. Shiv Shambu 2008 IX AD (Del) 289. Accordingly, the name of the Lokayukta , Delhi is deleted from the array of parties in the present case. The cause title of this writ petition will read as “Sat Prakash Rana v. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Another”. Consequently, the other respondents i.e. the Lt. Governor (LG) and Mr. Ramesh Thakur will be Respondents 1 and 2 respectively.

3. The proceedings before the Lokayukta are traceable to a complaint dated 7th October 2009 filed before him by Respondent No.2 Mr. Ramesh Thakur, a Superintending Engineer (SW) of the Delhi Jal Board (DJB) working at Sector 4, Booster Pumping Station, R.K. Puram. In his complaint Mr.Thakur stated that on the evening of 1st October 2010 when he was in his office, the Petitioner who is an MLA elected from the Bijwasan Constituency barged into his room at around 5.10 p.m. The complaint alleged that the Petitioner enquired about some petty works of tubewells of his constituency and then without provocation began shouting. Paras 2 to 4 of the complaint narrate what, according to Mr.Thakur, happened thereafter and read as under:

“2. I offered him chair. For a minute or two he enquired about some petty works of tubewells of his constituency. Suddenly without any provocation or any argument, he started shouting and asked “Who runs Delhi Jal Board”. I replied that it is run by Delhi Government.

3. At the top of his voice he said that in my areas of Mahipalpurand Rangpuri your Zonal Engineer is telling that I am under pressure to continue the boring work at Rangpuri first, instead of Mahipalpur, whereas I (MLA) want this to be done at Mahiplapur.

4. It would be important to mention that DJB had awarded works of drilling of Tubewells one each at Rangpuri and Mahipalpur on 17.09.09 respectively, and the drilling machine had gone to Rangpuri to execute the work. I told the MLA that I was not aware about the stark of work at Rangpuri or at Mahipalpuri. Immediately after this Sh. Rana started giving choicest abuses, got up from his chair and started hitting me. I was totally stunned by such ferocious attack. He had hit me so badly that I started feeling severe pain and pleaded to stop this nonsense.”

4. Mr.Thakur further stated in his complaint that on hearing the noise the members of his staff rushed into the room whereupon the Petitioner accompanied by his associates left even while threatening that he would kill Mr.Thakur if he lodged an FIR with the police.

5. Mr.Thakur gave a statement to the police at Police Station (P.S) R.K. Puram on the basis of which FIR No.486 dated 1st October 2009 was registered against the petitioner under Sections 186/353/332/506 read with 34 IPC. A copy of the FIR was enclosed with the complaint dated 7th October 2009.

6. On 19th October 2009 the Petitioner was issued a notice by the Office of the Lokayukta enclosing a copy of Mr.Thakur.s complaint dated 7th October 2009 together with a copy of the above FIR. The notice mentioned that as the Petitioner was a public functionary the Lokayukta had “taken cognizance of the above incident for an inquiry under Section

7. The Petitioner has enclosed a copy of a news