IMPORTANT POINT
The Mizoram Lokayukta can initiate proceedings based on a Preliminary Enquiry Report, and the petitioner is entitled to receive the report for an adequate opportunity to respond.

JUDGMENT :

DEVASHIS BARUAH, J.

1. Heard Mr. P. N. Goswami, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner. Also heard Mrs. Linda L. Fambawl, the learned Additional Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent Nos. 1, 2, 4 and 5 and Mr. J. C. Lalnunsanga, the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent No. 3.

2. The present writ petition has been filed challenging the provisions of Section 3 and 19 of the Mizoram Lokayukta Act, 2014 inserted by Mizoram Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2016; for setting aside and quashing the provision of Section 22 of the Mizoram Lokayukta Act, 2014; for setting aside and quashing the proceeding being Case No. MLC No. 34/2021 pending before the Mizoram Lokayukta and all the proceedings following therefrom and for writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to act any further on the basis of the preliminary inquiry, submitted by the Anti Corruption Bureau. At the outset, it is relevant to take note of that the learned counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner had submitted that the Mizoram Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2016 had not yet been notified as required under Section 1 (3) of the Mizoram Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2016. Taking into account that the Mizoram Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2016 had not yet been notified, the question of deciding as to whether Section 3 and 19 of the Mizoram Lokayukta Act, 2014 as amended by the Mizoram Lokayukta (Amendment) Act, 2016 do not arise.

3. In the backdrop of the above, let this Court therefore, take note of the brief facts leading to the filing of the instant writ petition.

4. The petitioner herein along with his wife who are both IAS Officers of the AGMUT Cadre 2014 Batch were transferred to Mizoram in the month of February 2018 and for a tenure spanning about three years, the petitioner and his wife served in the State of Mizoram. At the time the petitioner served in the State of Mizoram, he was working as the Deputy Commissioner, Siaha. After the petitioner was transferred back to Delhi, a letter was written on 15.03.2021 by his successor, i.e., Deputy Commissioner, Siaha the to the Chief Secretary to the Government of Mizoram seeking necessary guidance and instructions regarding issuance of utilization certificates on alleged doubtful claims of administrative cost for the purpose of acquisition of land for widening of NH-54 within Siaha District. On the basis of the said letter, the Chief Secretary, State of Mizoram instructed the Anti Corruption Bureau to make an enquiry to ascertain whether there is any prima facie case for referring the matter to the Mizoram Lokayukta. Subsequent thereto, a Preliminary Enquiry Report was prepared by the Anti Corruption Bureau and the same was submitted to the Mizoram Lokayukta. On receipt of the said Preliminary Enquiry Report, the Mizoram Lokayukta initiated a proceedings which was registered as MLC No. 34/2021.

5. On 24.12.2021, the Chairperson, Mizoram Lokayukta had issued an order-cum-notice informing the petitioner about the letter written by the Deputy Commissioner, Siaha and that the Chief Secretary with the due approval of the Chief Minister, Mizoram instructed the Anti Corruption Bureau to make an enquiry to ascertain whether there was a prima facie case for referring the matter to Mizoram Lokayukta. It was also mentioned in the said notice-cum-order that the Anti Corruption Bureau conducted an Enquiry and submitted the Preliminary Report and connected documents to the Mizoram Lokayukta. The Preliminary Report as mentioned in the order-cum-notice substantiated the complaint of irregularities committed by the petitioner, the then Deputy Commissioner, Siaha and as such, a case being Mizoram Lokayukta Case No. MLC No. 34/2021was instituted. It is under such circumstances, in exercise of the powers under Section 19 (3) of the Mizoram Lokayukta Act, 2014, the petitioner was informed vide the said Notice-cum-Order and was given the liberty to appear in person or through