The court emphasized that adverse remarks made by the Lokayukta without affording the petitioner an opportunity to be heard violate principles of natural justice and cannot prejudice ongoing proceedings.

JUDGMENT :

Anubha Rawat Choudhary, J.

W.P.(C) No.3238 of 2018 has been filed for the following reliefs:

“(i) An appropriate writ, order or direction commanding upon the respondent no.1 to certify and transmit records of Case No.01/Lok(Forest)/03/2014 including order dated 22.12.2017 (Annexure-12) passed by Learned Lokayukta, as despite application dated 11.06.2018 till date certified copy of order has not made available to the petitioner and upon receipt of the records of the case, quash the order dated 22.12.2017.

ii. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of order dated 22.12.2017 passed by Learned Lokayukta in Case No. 01/Lok(Forest)/03/2014, whereby and whereunder in sheer violation of principles of natural justice without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner in the said order adverse observation(s) / sweeping allegation(s) have been recorded against the petitioner.

And / Or

iii. Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

2. W.P.(C) No.4430 of 2017 has been filed for the following relief:

“i. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of letter dated 12.05.2017 issued by Deputy commissioner, Bokaro, whereby and whereunder in purported compliance of order dated 09.05.2017 the petitioner is directed to submit its point wise clarification;

ii. An appropriate writ, order or direction for quashing of letter dated 26.07.2017 issued by respondent no.2, whereby and whereunder in purported compliance of order dated 20.07.2017 passed by Learned Lokayukta, a team consisting Shri Rajeev Ranjan (Scientist 'D') and Shri Vasant Kiran Babu, IFS (Deputy Conservator of Forest) is constituted which will visit the premises of the Petitioner Company and it is further directed that they should be provided with documents and information as sought by them.

iii. For a further writ / order or direction commanding upon the Respondents to forbear them acting pursuant to or from giving effect their letters dated 12.05.2017 and 26.07.2017 as the same are wholly without jurisdiction;

iv. For issuance of appropriate writ / order / direction commanding upon the respondent no.4 to certify and transmit records of purported proceeding / enquiry relating to the petitioner and its plant (case number or details of which is not known to the petitioner) and upon receipt of records to quash the same. And / Or

v. Any other appropriate writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) as may be may be deemed fit and proper for doing conscionable justice to the petitioner.”

W.P.(C) No. 3238 of 2018

3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner was never issued any notice in the proceedings before the learned Lokayukta and accordingly, no opportunity of hearing was ever given to the petitioner. He submits that he has no grievance with regard to any findings which has been recorded in the impugned order qua the erring officials/public servants but the petitioner is only aggrieved by the findings and observations made in the impugned order against the petitioner which have been made at the back of the petitioner.

4. Learned counsel submits that there are many pending proceedings in which the petitioner is participating as a plaintiff/petitioner or as a defendant/ respondent. He submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if an appropriate observation is made by this Court that the findings or observations in the impugned order will not prejudice the petitioner while placing their case before the appropriate authorities /Courts / Tribunals in the pending proceeding. He has also placed the entire impugned order and has highlighted various findings /observations made by the learned Lokayukta in the impugned order.

5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has relied upon the judgment passed by the Hon’ble Delhi High Court reported in 2003 (69) DRJ 229 Werm (India) Ltd. & Ors. Vs. The Lokayukta & Ors. and has referred to paragraph no. –