Particulars
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS
N. SESHASAYEE, J.
K.R. Jayagopi - Appellant
Versus
The Honourable Tamil Nadu Lokayukta, represented by its Registrar, SIDCO Corporate Office, Chennai & Ors. - Respondents
W.P. No. 7920 of 2022
Decided On : 03-11-2023
Corruption - Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 - Sec. 12, Sec. 13 - The judgment discusses the application of Sec. 12 and Sec. 13 of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 in the context of a complaint alleging corruption and malfeasance in the procurement of gift hampers. The court analyzes the jurisdiction of Lokayukta to inquire into the complaint and interprets the exceptions provided under Sec. 13(1) of the Act. The court concludes that the Lokayukta misapplied Sec. 13(1)(c) and sets aside the order, remanding the complaint for reconsideration.
Fact of the Case:
The petitioner filed a complaint alleging corruption and malfeasance in the procurement of gift hampers distributed during Pongal festival. The Lokayukta refused to take cognizance of the complaint, citing Sec. 13(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the Lokayukta misapplied Sec. 13(1)(c) to the nature of the complaint and set aside the order, remanding the complaint for reconsideration.
Issues: The issues involved the jurisdiction of Lokayukta to inquire into the complaint and the interpretation of the exceptions provided under Sec. 13(1) of the Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the complaint prima facie disclosed acts constituting corruption and malfeasance, and the Lokayukta misapplied Sec. 13(1)(c) to the nature of the complaint.
Final Decision: The petition was allowed, and the court set aside the order of the Lokayukta, remanding the complaint for reconsideration.
JUDGMENT
(Prayer: Writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the first respondent in R.No.3 of 2022 dated 02.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the first respondent to take the complaint on record and conduct a detailed enquiry by issuing notice to all respondents by following the due process of law laid under the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 in letter and spirit.)
1. The petitioner herein challenges the order of the Lokayukta, the first respondent herein, dated 02.03.2022, passed in R.No.3 of 2022, by which it refuses to take cognizance of the complaint which the petitioner had preferred against respondents 2 to 6.
2. The case of the petitioner is that:
(a) The petitioner had preferred a complaint to the Lokayukta, alleging corruption, acts of malfeasance and impropriety committed by respondents 2 to 6 vis-a-vis the gift hampers distributed to the under privileged citizens throughout the State, during Pongal festival in January, 2022. As per the announcement made by the Hon'ble Chief Minister, it was to benefit around 2.10 crore ration card holders at the cost of Rs.1,296.88 crores of public money.
(b)The gift hamper was to contain 21 food items, and they are as follows:
| S.No. | Particulars | Quantity |
| 1 | Raw Rice | 1kg |
| 2 | Jaggery | 1kg |
| 3 | Cashew | 50 grams |
| 4 | Dry Grapes | 50 grams |
| 5 | Cardamom | 10 grams |
| 6 | Moong Dal | 500 grams |
| 7 | Ghee | 100 grams |
| 8 | Turmeric Powder | 100 grams |
| 9 | Chilli Powder | 100 grams |
| 10 | Coriander Powder | 100 grams |
| 11 | Mustard | 100 grams |
| 12 | Cumin | 100 grams |
| 13 | Pepper | 50 grams |
| 14 | Tamarind | 200 grams |
| 15 | Toor Dhal | 250 grams |
| 16 | Urad Dhal | 500 grams |
| 17 | Rava | 1 kg |
| 18 | Wheat Flour | 1 kg |
| 19 | Salt | 500 |
| 20 | Cloth Bag | 1 piece |
| 21 | Sugarcane | 1 piece |
1 1 kg. 2 Jaggery 1 kg 3 Cashew 50 grams 4 Dry Grapes 50 grams 5 Cardamom 10 grams 6 Moong Dal 500 grams 7 Ghee 100 grams 8 Turmeric Powder 100 grams 9 Chilli Powder 100 grams 10 Coriander Powder 100 grams 11 Mustard 100 grams 12 Cumin 100 grams 13 Pepper 50 grams 14 Tamarind 200 grams 15 Toor Dhal 250 grams 16 Urad Dhal 500 grams 17 Rava 1 kg 18 Wheat Flour 1 kg 19 Salt 500 20 Cloth Bag 1 piece 21 Sugarcane 1 piece
(c) The scheme however, was infested with serious irregularities and illegalities, and visited with corruption and administrative malfeasance, and the details as could be gathered by the petitioner are as below:
i. Only a short e-tender notice was issued for procuring the items for a total sum of Rs.1,296.88 crores, and in the process, the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998, and the Rules made therein were deliberately ignored;
ii. The articles procured were of sub-standard quality. Most of the items distributed had crossed their expiry date, and smartly the expirty dates were not mentioned in any of the hampers;
iii. While the list of 21 items are easily available within the State, the Government had gone for procurement from the North Indian businessmen at exorbitant prices. Even the sugarcanes were offered by our own farmers at the market price of Rs.12/- to Rs.15/- per cane, to the co-operative societies, the Government went on to purchase it at Rs.33/. The scheme, valued at Rs.1,296.88 crores, was to benefit 2,15,48,060 beneficiaries, and this means that the per capita cost of a gift hamper is Rs.602/-. However, if the same was procured in the open market, it would be around Rs.485.55 only, and that the difference roughly estimated at Rs.117/- per beneficiary, had been swindled and gone into the pockets of respondents 2 to 6;
iv. In some of the places,
AI
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 ....
Proper consideration, involving active application of mind, is necessary when evaluating defense replies in cases involving allegations against public servants.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for active application of mind and proper consideration of the defense reply before making recommendations for instituting criminal....
The doctrine of necessity applies to single-member statutory bodies, permitting the authority to perform functions despite allegations of bias, as the power to make final determinations cannot be del....
Point of law : Report of the Upa-lokayuktha cannot be said to be without jurisdiction and the report made therein by itself does not affect any legal right on the petitioner therein. The action of th....
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....
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.