IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
S.MANIKUMAR, MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN, JJ.
P.L.Jacob, S/o.Late Lonappan – Appellant
Versus
District Registrar (General), Thrissur – Respondent
WP(C) No. 22055 of 2014
Decided on : 21-03-2023
Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Section 8, 9 - Provisions relating to complaints and Investigations - Matters not subject to investigation - Petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta, highlighting misappropriation of Government properties, by creating title documents, with active connivance of respondents therein – Government officials - Said complaint was taken on file by Lok Ayukta - As for limitation, Section 8(2)(c) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 mandates that "Lok Ayukta shall investigate no complaint involving an allegation "made after expiry of five years from date on which action complained against is alleged to have taken place (Para 8).
Finding of the Court :
Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 is an Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for making enquiries into any action (including any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action) relatable to matters specified in List II or List III of Seventh Schedule to the Constitution of India taken by or on behalf of the Government of Kerala or certain public authorities in the State of Kerala in certain cases and for matters connected therewith or ancillary thereto.
Result: Writ petition is dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
S.Manikumar, J.
Instant writ petition is filed by the petitioner seeking for the following reliefs:
“i. To set aside Ext. P5 order and allow the petitioner to implead affected parties and prosecute the matter before the Lok Ayukta.
ii. Direct the Lok Ayukta to reconsider Ext. P3 complaint after affording petitioner an opportunity to implead the affected persons.”
2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under:
2.1. Petitioner has lodged a complaint before the Kerala Lok Ayukta on 16.02.2012, highlighting the misappropriation of Government properties, by creating title documents, with the active connivance of respondents therein – Government officials. Said complaint was taken on file by the Lok Ayukta on 25.04.2012.
2.2. The Lok Ayukta admitted the matter on 28.06.2012, and the respondents have filed their respective statements.
2.3. When the matter was taken up, the Upa Lok Ayukta, without acceding to the request of the petitioner to permit him to implead the affected persons, has dismissed the complaint vide Exhibit-P5 order dated 7.3.2014 in Complaint No.1085/2012, holding that the affected persons are not in the party array. Petitioner was not even permitted to adduce additional evidence.
3. Being aggrieved by Exhibit P5 order passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta dated 7.3.2014, instant writ petition is filed, inter alia, on the following grounds:
A. The Upa Lok Ayukta should not have taken a hyper technical view while disposing of the application before it, even though the statute mandates the Lok Ayukta to seek for ends of justice rather than to be hyper technical.
B. At any rate, the Lok Ayukta ought to have allowed petitioner herein to implead the necessary parties rather than in dismissing the complaint, by the impugned order, on technical reasons.
C. The private parties were not impleaded, as the petitioner had not sought any relief against them and had sought action only against the officials, who were guilty of misdeeds.
D. The Lok Ayukta should have taken into the consideration the fact that the public property is being misappropriated for personal ends and petitioner had sought action against the officials who were hand in glove with the vested interests who misappropriated the property.
4. Refuting the allegations made in the writ petition, the District Registrar (General), Thrissur, respondent No.1, has filed a counter affidavit dated 29.11.2014.
5. Relevant portions of the counter affidavit read as under:
“A. It is respectfully submitted that Exhibit P3 Complaint was filed alleging that there were irregularities in the registration of Sale Deed bearing Registration No.1891/2006 of the Sub Registrar Office, Chalakkudy. As per the recitals in Sale Deed No.1891/2006, it is stated that the property was obtained by St. Mary's Ferone Church, Chalakkudy by virtue of document No.1727/1058 M.E. of the Sub Registry Office, Mukundapuram.
B. It is hereby submitted that an enquiry was conducted by the Sub Registrar, Chalakkudy regarding the allegation leveled by the petitioner. The certified copy of the Document No.1727/1058 was verified and found that the document is a Sale Deed converting certain wet lands to the Chalakkudy Church. The number denoted in the above Document is 127 of Kizhakke Chalakkudy Village. The explanation was also called for from the Document Writer Smt. Jolly who prepared Sale Deed No. 1891/2006. The document Writer deposed that the document in question was prepared after thorough verification of the certified copy of the prior deed and certificate issued from the Village Office, Kizhakke Chalakkudy stating the correct Survey Number of the property as 528. The document writer submitted the certified copy of the Document No.1727/1058 M.E registered at Sub Registry Office, Mukundapuram which is later renamed as Sub Registry Office, Irinjalakkuda. She also produced a certificate issued from the Village Office, Kizhakke Chalakkudy certifying that the Survey number of the properties covered u
G. Narayanan Nair v. State of Kerala reported in 2017 (1) KLT 959
SupremeToday
Section 9 of the Act, 1999 deals with provisions relating to complaints and investigation.
The court ruled that a preliminary inquiry does not require prior notice to a public servant and that the Lok Ayukta can proceed without forwarding a copy of the complaint unless a formal investigati....
A quasi-judicial authority must observe natural justice by sharing complaint copies with affected parties. Investigating service-related allegations requires strict adherence to statutory limitation ....
Point of Law : Functions of Ombudsman - Lok Ayukta ought not have proceeded with any complaint or mal administration with regard to a public servant of a Local Self Government Institution.
Jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta in deciding complaints involving actions specified in Schedule II under Section 8(1)(b) of Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999.
The Lok Ayukta lacks jurisdiction to issue binding orders in civil disputes, reaffirming that its role is limited to making recommendations.
Authorities under Acts, namely Upa Lok Ayukta, Human Rights Commission, Juvenile Justice Board, Civil Courts etc., should take note of observations and directions issued in judgment while considering....
The power of review is a creature of the statute and no court or quasi- judicial body or administrative authority can review its judgment or order or decision unless it is legally empowered to do so.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.