Siri Jagan, J.

Petitioner in this original petition is the complainant in Complaint No.804/2001 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. He has filed this original petition challenging the order of the Lok Ayukta passed on 17-10-2001 in the said complaint. The facts leading to the original petition are as under.

2. The complainant is a person who claims to be a public interested human rights activist. He filed the complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayykta alleging as follows.

“[i] The respondents in collusion with each other manipulated the Engineering and Medical entrance rank list of the state for the academic year.

[ii] The first respondent [Minister for Education] with the mala fide intention to delete the name of a student from the rank list and then to insert in that place the name of a student who has not even appeared for the entrance examination collided with the second respondent [the then Entrance Commissioner] and committed the manipulation of the rank list.

[iii] In the Mathrubhumi daily dated 25th August 2001, the second respondent had alleged that the first respondent had demanded him to do illegal acts concerning the said entrance list, to which the respondent replied that the attempt is to black mail him.

[iv] The above statements of the respondents show itself that they have committed the said offence.”

The above allegations were wholly based on a news item in the Mathrubhoomi dated 25-8-2001 and the Sunday Express dated 26.8.2001. He had absolutely no other material whatsoever with him to substantiate the averments in his complaint. Despite that fact, the Lok Ayukta did not reject the complaint at the admission stage, but conducted a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 11(1) of the Lok Ayukta Act. The Lok Ayukta directed the Commissioner for Entrance Examination to produce the relevant records pertaining to admission to Engineering and Medical Colleges relating to the relevant academic year. After perusing the documents produced as also the report of the Registrar, Additional Registrar and Deputy Registrar the Lok Ayukta filed after perusing the records produced as directed by the Lok Ayukta, and after examining the files, the Lok Ayukta did not find any substance in the complaint of the petitioner. Accordingly, the Lok Ayukta dismissed the complaint. While dismissing the same, the Lok Ayukta made the following observations about the conduct of the petitioner during the pendency of the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta:

“[10] We are afraid the complainant seems to have filed this complaint more for publicity than for any bona fide reason. Immediately the complaint was filed, the news was flashed in the newspapers even before this court passed any order. After we issued direction for production of the records, the petitioner caustically commented several times through the media about this court not issuing notice. His anxiety for publicity seems to have outweighed his sense of propriety, dignity and decorum and his solemn duty to court and the responsibility to the public.

[11] The complainant started issuing press statements and giving press interviews which also were given wide publicity in the T.V. and other media. He gave press interviews, made provocative statements, based on this own wrong conjectures and surmises, on this pending complaint several times at different places forgetting the fact that an issue, which is sub judice, is not a matter for public debate. In fact, the filing of this complaint seems to have generated a “publicity phobia” for him. He does not resist the temptation to go public in respect of a matter which is “sub judice”. He went still further and made unnecessary, unwanted and untrue statements in the T.V. interview in the Kairail news channel on the 27th of September for not acceding to his prayer for issuing notice to the respondents.

[12] We called for the tapes/video cassette to ascertain correctly about the statements made by the complainant. The Kairali Channel, it should