The main legal point established in the judgment is the discretion conferred upon the Lok Ayukta in conducting the preliminary enquiry and the absence of any stipulation on the manner of its conduct. The judgment also clarified the requirement to forward a copy of the complaint and afford an opportunity to offer comments only if the Lok Ayukta proposes to conduct any 'investigation' after the 'preliminary enquiry'.

P.R. Ramachandra Menon, J.

1. Ext. P3 order passed by the 5th respondent/Lok Ayukta, authorising and directing the District Police Chief, Palakkad, to conduct a 'preliminary investigation' in respect of the allegations in Ext. P1 complaint, is under challenge in this Writ Petition preferred by the petitioner, who is arrayed as the 3rd respondent in the complaint. The main ground of challenge is that, Ext. P3 order is beyond the power, competence and jurisdiction of the 5th respondent as far as 'preliminary enquiry' is covered and that there is clear violation of statutory prescription, particularly under S. 9(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, in so far as no copy of the complaint was forwarded to the petitioner before ordering the 'preliminary investigation' and no opportunity of hearing was given to submit any explanation. There is also a case that the proceedings are per se wrong and unsustainable, in so far as 'State' is not a party to the proceedings and that there is infringement of S. 9(8) of the Act as well.

2. Coming to the factual scenario, the petitioner is a Member of the Legislative Assembly from the Ollur constituency in Trissur District. It is stated that, the petitioner is leading a transparent public life for nearly four decades and is holding various posts in the party and other supporting organizations, functioning without giving any room for complaints of corruption or such other instances in any manner. It is as a bolt from the blue, that Ext. P3 order has come in, without giving any opportunity to put forth his version and to have caused Ext. P1 complaint to be dismissed at the threshold, having been preferred without any truth or bona fides.

3. The crux of Ext. P1 complaint preferred by the 1st respondent (complainant) is that the 2nd respondent had offered to procure employment to the son of the petitioner in the Railways under the sports quota; making use of the connections with the petitioner (sitting M.L.A.) and the 4th respondent (then M.P.). The petitioner, in fact, is a vegetable merchant, while his son is a body builder, who is having several certificates to his credentials. The 1st respondent was made to believe that, he had to spare a sizable amount to be given to the 4th respondent and the petitioner herein. With this intent, the 1st respondent had gone to Thiruvananthapuram and was permitted to occupy room No. 503 in the Periyar Block of the M.L.A. Quarters (which was the room of the petitioner M.L.A.) and was taking rest there, from the early morning on 18.11.2013. It is alleged that the petitioner had telephoned him and instructed to go ahead with the deal. Accordingly, the 1st respondent met the 4th respondent at his residence, when the alleged demand to spare a sum of ` 25 lakhs for the then M.P. and M.L.A. was made and it was directed to be entrusted with the 2nd respondent.

4. In furtherance to the alleged deal, the 1st respondent contends that he had entrusted a sum of Rupees Six lakhs to the 3rd respondent, who was reportedly holding some public office as instructed and a sum of Rupees 5 lakhs each on 28.11.2013 and 15.12.2013 to the 2nd respondent. A sum of Rupees Five lakhs was deposited in the name of the wife of the 2nd respondent by name 'Deepa' in her Account with the Thrissur Aswini Branch of the UCO Bank on 04.12.2014 and a further sum of 1.25 lakhs was deposited in the name of her daughter by name 'Sai Krishna' on 12.04.2014, as instructed. After parting with the money as above, the 2nd respondent turned his back, which made the 1st respondent to meet the petitioner herein and the 4th respondent, demanding return of money, as the assurance to have secured employment to his son turned to be futile. Non-return of the money led to Ext. P1 complaint preferred before the 5th respondent/Lok Ayukta.

5. Obviously, an affidavit was sworn to and filed by the 1st respondent/complainant before the 5th respondent, along with Ext. P1 complaint, as stipulated under the relevant Rul