A.V. Savant, C.J.

Heard all the learned counsel, Mr. S. Sreekumar for the petitioners, Mr. M.K. Damodaran, the learned Advocate General, for respondents 1 to 3 and Mr. Georgekutty Mathew, for the fourth respondent.

2. This petition under Art.226 of the Constitution seeks to challenge the interim order dated 27th, May, 2000 - Ext. P1 passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint No. 108 of 2000. At the top of the said order, the words "Kerala Lok Ayukta"are used to denote the Hon'ble Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta acting together in exercise of their powers under sub-s.(1) of S.7 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 (for short, the Act). In the scheme of the provisions of the sub-s.(1) of S.7, the exercise of power is jointly by the Lok Ayukta and one of the Upa Lok Ayuktas sitting in a Division Bench. For the sake of convenience, they are referred to as the "Kerala Lok Ayukta".

3. By way of amendment, further relief prayed for is that the records leading to Ext. P2 complaint dated 23.3.2000, pending before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, should be quashed. The reason for this amendment relief is ground H, taken by way of amendment, that the complaint Ext. P2 filed before the Kerala Lok Ayukta does not come within the purview of S.7(1) of the Act and hence it was not maintainable before the Kerala Lok Ayukta. Under a separate order passed today, we have allowed the amendment petition, C.M.P. No. 30229 of 2000.

4. We need to mention, at the outset, that the Registry has taken an objection regarding the maintainability of the Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution. Objection is in the following words:

"O.P. against an order of Lok Ayukta is not maintainable. Hence returned.

Time 15 days. 1.6.2000".

"Maintainability is referred to Division Bench and is pending. May be posted before the Bench. Resubmitted 1.6,2000".

In view of the above, the matter has been placed before us, firstly on the point of maintainability of a Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution against a statutory authority like the Kerala Lok Ayukta constituted under the Act and secondly, on the point of maintainability of the complaint Ext. P2 before the Kerala Lok Ayukta.

5. In view of the above, the following two questions of law arise for our consideration:

1. Whether a Writ Petition under Art.226 of the Constitution is maintainable challenging the order passed by a statutory authority like the Kerala Lok Ayukta under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999;

2. Whether on the facts averred in Complaint No. 108 of 2000 dated 23rd March 2000 - Ext. P2 filed by the fourth respondent Dr. Joseph Scaria, the Kerala Lok Ay ukta had jurisdiction under S.7(1) of the Act or whether it was Upa Lok Ayukta acting under sub-s.(2) of S.7 of the said Act, who was competent to entertain the complaint."

In order to appreciate the controversy, a few facts may be stated. We make it clear, at the outset, that we express no opinion on the merits of the grievance raised in the original complaint.

6. On 23rd March, 2000, the fourth respondent, Dr. Joseph Scaria presented a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta alleging that first petitioner before us, Dr. Smt. V.C. Kamalu, District Animal Husbandry Officer, Palakkad, had indulged in acts of maladministration, wilful omission, abuse of power, and official harassment. It is then alleged that petitioners 2 and 3 before us, Mr. A.U. Mamachan, Field Officer, District Veterinary Centre, Palakkad and Mr. B.H. Prasad, U.D.. Clerk, District Animal Husbandry Office, Palakkad, had illegally confined Dr. Rajan Chungath with the active connivance of the first petitioner to pressurise him to sign an official document in order to disburse honorarium of one Mr. Narayanankutty, Inspector, Society for Prevention of Cruelty towards Animals (SPCA) and thereby obtained undue pecuniary advantage to him. The third ground alleged for invoking the jurisdiction of the Kerala Lok Ayukta is maladministration, wilful omission, and inaction on the part of respondent 1 and 2