IMPORTANT POINT
The Lokpal is required to consider whether a prima facie case exists before directing an investigation, and the decision on the complaint being barred by limitation need not be decided at the stage of ordering a preliminary inquiry, but may be decided after the inquiry report is received.

JUDGMENT

Rekha Palli, J (Oral) - The present appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent seeks to assail the order dated 22.01.2024 passed by the learned Single Judge in W.P. (C) 13213/2022. Vide the impugned order, the learned Single Judge has disposed of the writ petition filed by the appellant by rejecting his prayer for quashing of the complaint bearing no. C-38/2020- Lokpal pending before the respondent by holding that the respondent no.1 is yet to take a considered decision on the material provided by the CBI as to whether an investigation against the appellant is necessary.

2. Before dealing with the rival submissions of the parties, the brief factual matrix as emerging from the record may be noted.

3. The appellant is a sitting Member of Parliament in the Rajya Sabha from the State of Jharkhand and is also the president of Jharkhand Mukti Morcha, a state political party in Jharkhand. While the respondent no.1 is the Lokpal, the respondent no.2/Mr. Nishikant Dubey is a Member of Parliament in the Lok Sabha from Godda District, State of Jharkhand.

4. On 05.08.2020, a complaint bearing No. C-38/2020 was filed with the respondent no.1 by the respondent no.2 under The Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 (the Act) alleging therein that the appellant by abusing/misusing his official position had along with his family members and in connivance with his relatives and family friends, acquired several immovable properties in various cities of the State of Jharkhand by indulging in corrupt practices.

5. Upon receipt of the aforesaid complaint, the respondent no.1 vide its order dated 15.09.2020, directed the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) to initiate a preliminary inquiry against the appellant under Section 20(1) of the Act in order to ascertain as to whether a prima facie case for proceeding further in the matter, existed against him. The CBI was granted six weeks time to submit its report from the date of receipt of the said order, which period was on 26.11.2020, extended upto 06.01.2021. This period was repeatedly extended at the request of the CBI and it is on 01.07.2021 that the CBI submitted its findings of preliminary inquiry along with a list of 82 properties owned by the appellant and his family members. In its report, the CBI also stated that the matter being voluminous, further time was required to analyse the legality of the assets possessed by the appellant and his family members, for which purpose the Income Tax Authorities had been approached with a request to provide copies of returns, which were yet to be received.

6. On the same date, the CBI also sought comments from the appellant regarding the mode of acquisition and source of funds in respect of the aforesaid properties, in response whereto, he replied by stating that he was not the owner of the properties referred to by the CBI. The appellant, however also sought additional time to submit his detailed comments and simultaneously also requested the respondent no.1 on 08.09.2021, to provide him with a copy of the complaint based on which the order dated 15.09.2020 issuing directions to the CBI was passed.

7. It is the appellants case that though he was on 14.10.2021, provided with a copy of the order dated 15.09.2020 by the CBI, he was not given a copy of the complaint, compelling him to make a request to the respondent no.1 on 28.12.2021 for providing him a copy of the complaint. Pursuant to the orders passed by respondent no.1 on 27.01.2022, the appellant was provided with a copy of the complaint on 17.02.2022. Soon thereafter, the respondent no.1 directed the appellant to give his reply to the comments to the complaint, in response whereto, the appellant vide his communication dated 01.04.2022, raised a preliminary objection qua the jurisdiction of respondent no.1 to inquire into the matter, for which purpose, he relied on Section 53 of the Act. In his response, the appellant also urged that since the CBI had sought his comments after expiry of the 180 day time