IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
RAJESH SHANKAR, J.
Janardhan Sahni - Petitioner
Versus
The State of Jharkhand & Ors. - Respondents
W.P.(C) No. 2809 of 2021
Decided On : 05-04-2022
Lokayukta Act - Writ Petition - Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, Section 12
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a writ petition seeking direction for action on certain orders and for lodging an FIR against specific individuals. The petitioner claimed to be an elected member of a committee and was raising voice against the Chairman and Secretary of the committee. The petitioner's grievance was that an order passed by the Lokayukta was not being acted upon.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the procedure for redressal of grievances was provided under Section 12 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, and could only be followed by the Lokayukta. As the office of Lokayukta was vacant, the writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India could not be entertained.
Issues: The issues involved the petitioner's claim against the Chairman and Secretary of the committee, the non-action on the Lokayukta's order, and the request for lodging an FIR.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the detailed procedure provided in Section 12 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, for redressal of grievances and the communication of findings and recommendations to the competent authority by the Lokayukta.
Final Decision: The writ petition was disposed of, granting liberty to the petitioner to approach the Lokayukta once the office resumed. The court also stated that the prayer for lodging an FIR could not be entertained in the civil writ jurisdiction of the Court.
JUDGMENT :
The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 2 to 8 to act in pursuance of letter bearing memo no. 1819 dated 23.10.2018 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), letter bearing memo no. 2273 dated 08.11.2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), letter bearing memo no. 87 dated 20.05.2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) as well as the order dated 18.09.2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Complaint No. 01/LOK (Co-operative) 1/2019. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned State respondent to forthwith lodge First Information Report against the respondent nos. 9 and 10 and to stop fishing and water tax distribution in pursuance of letter bearing memo no. 87 dated 20.05.2020.
2. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner claims to be an elected member of Taljhari Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samittee Limited and was raising voice against the respondent nos. 9 and 10, who happened to be the Chairman and Secretary of the said Samittee respectively and due to the said reason, they suspended his membership during pendency of the aforesaid complaint before the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The grievance of the petitioner raised through the present writ petition is that order dated 18.09.2019 passed by the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the aforesaid complaint case is not being acted upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to operative part of the said order, submits that learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi while forwarding a copy of the order dated 18.09.2019 along with the copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner and the explanation submitted by one Ravindra Kumar Das – the then Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sahebganj Circle, Sahebganj has recommended appropriate action against the said Assistant Registrar with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to inform about the action taken in that regard. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main reason for preferring the writ petition is that the post of learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand is presently vacant and as such the petitioner is not in a position to know as to whether any action has been taken by the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of order dated 18.09.2019 passed in Complaint No. 01/LOK (Co-operative) 1/2019.
3. I have gone through the provisions of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as “the Act, 2001”) particularly Section 12 of the same, which provides a mechanism/procedure of preparation of report in writing by the Lokayukta as well as communication thereof to the concerned public servant and the competent authority after investigation of any case pursuant to receipt of complaint involving certain grievance. Section 12(1) provides that if, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving a grievance has been made and the Lokayukta is satisfied that injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or any other person has been occurred, a report in writing shall be made by the Lokayukta with recommendation to the public servant and the competent authority concerned for redressal/remedy of such injustice or undue hardship within a time as specified in the report. As per Section 12(3) of the Act, 2001, if after investigation of any action with respect to which a complaint involving allegation has been made and the Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. Sub-section (4) of Section 12 provides that thereafter the competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and intimate the Lokayukta regarding the action taken or propo
AI
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.