Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 1229
2007(1) JLJ 398
Subhash Samvatsar, J.
Pooran Singh Palaiya and others v. Lokayukt, M.P. and another
Writ Petition No.5659 of 2005 (Gwalior): against the order of Lokayukt, M.P.;
Decided on 14.11.2006.
P.N. Kelkar for petitioners;
Atul Gupta with Miss Madhurima for respondent No.1;
Brijesh Sharma, Government Advocate for respondent No.2.
Headnote:(1) Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (M.P.) -S.2(g)(v)(ii) -- public servant -- municipal corporation -- falls under sub-clause (ii) being local authority established by enactment of State Government -- mayor and councillors etc. falling under it are public servants -- can be proceeded against under the Adhiniyam.
A complaint was made before the Lokayukt, Madhya Pradesh about some irregularities in acceptance of tenders called by the Municipal Corporation for construction and repairs of roads. The Lokayukt, in exercise of the powers under section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 inquired the matter by deputing Chief Engineer. Chief Engineer on the preliminary enquiry found prima facie case against the petitioners as well as Municipal Commissioner, Engineers and officers of the Corporation. A show cause notice was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioners and other members of the Mayor-in-Council as well as to the Municipal Corporation and Engineers, copy of which is Annexure P-7.
Petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the Lokayukt has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter against them, as they are not covered by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981. [Paras 3 & 4
Held: If we read section 2(g)(v)(ii) of the Adhiniyam, we find that the interpretation made by Shri Kelkar, learned counsel for the petitioners, though is attractive, but is not correct. For the correct interpretation, we have to divide sub-clause (ii) into two parts, I.e.,
(i) Corporation; or
(ii) local authority established by State Government under a Central or State enactment.
Thus, this sub-clause is in two parts and words "established by State Government" are applicable only to the local authority and not to the Corporation. By adding the words "established by State Government" the Legislature had intended to include all the local authorities established by the State Government under the provisions of the Adhiniyam and not to keep persons holding any office or in employment of the Corporation out of the scope of Adhiniyam.
It is true that the Municipal Corporation, Gwalior is not established by the State Government and it is constituted under the provisions of the Constitution of India, Le., Article 243-Q and R, still the office holders and employees of the Corporation are not beyond the purview of the definition of public servant defined in the said Adhiniyam. In such circumstances, even though I do not agree with the reasoning adopted by the Lokayukt, yet he has reached the right conclusions. [Paras 16 & 17
(2) Constitution of India -- Arts.243Q and 243R -- Municipal Corporation, Gwalior is constituted under -- still the office holder and employees are public servants. [Para 17
¼1½ yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ¼e-ç-½& &/kkjk 2¼N½ ¼ik¡p½ ¼nks½& &yksd lsod& &uxjikfyd fuxe& &jkT ljdkj dh vf/kfu;fefr }kjk LFkkfir LFkkuh; çkf/kdj.k gksus ds dkj.k mi[kaM ¼nks½ ds v/khu vkrk gS& &rn/khu egkikSj rFkk ik"kZn yksd lsod gSa& &vf/kfu;e ds v/khu muds fo#) dk;Zokgh dh tk ldrh gSA
yksdk;qDr] e/; çns‘k ds le{k lM+dksa ds fuekZ.k vkSj ejEer ds fy, uxjikfyd fuxe }kjk vkeaf=r dh xbZ fufonkvksa dh LohÑfr esa dqN vfu;ferrkvksa ds ckjs esa f‘kdk;r dh xbZA yksdk;qDr us e/; çns‘k yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 dh /kkjk 7 ds v/khu ‘kfDr ç;qDr dj eq[; bathfu;j dks çfrfu;qDr dj ekeys dh tk¡p djkbZA çkjafHkd tk¡p djus ij eq[; bathfu;j dk fu"d"kZ Fkk fd ;kph ds lkFk gh uxjikfyd vk;qDr] bathfu;jksa vkSj fuxe ds vf/kdkfj;ksa ds fo#) çFken`"V;k ekeyk gSA çR;FkhZ Ø-1 }kjk ;kphx.k vkSj es;j&bu&dkmfUly ds vU; lnL;ksa ds lkFk gh uxjikfyd fuxe vkSj bathfu;jksa dks dkj.k crkvks lwpuk tkjh dh xbZ ftldh çfr mikca/k ih&7 gSA
;kphx.k us çkjafHkd vkifRrÙk dh fd yksdk;qDr dks muds fo#) dksbZ Hkh ekeyk xzg.k djus dh vf/kdkfjrk ugha gS D;ksafd og e/; çns‘k yksdk;qDr ,oa mi&yksdkqDr vf/kfu;e] 1981 ds mica/kksa }kjk vkPNkfnr ugha gSA ¿iSjk 3 ,oa 4À
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % ;fn ge vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 2 ¼N½ ¼ik¡p½ ¼nks½ i<s+ rks ikrs gSa fd ;kphx.k ds fo}ku dkmUlsy Jh dsydj }kjk fd;k x;k fuoZpu ;|fi vkd"kZd gS rFkkfi lgh ugha gSA lgh fuoZpu ds fy, gesa mi[kaM ¼nks½ dks nks Hkkxksa esa foHkkftr djuk gksxk] vFkkZr~ %
(ii) fuxe ;k
(ii) jkT; ljdkj }kjk dsUnzh; ;k jkT; vf/kfu;fefr ds v/khu LFkkfir LFkkuh; çkf/kdj.kA
vr% ;g mi[kaM nks Hkkxksa esa gS rFkk ‘‘kCn ^^jkT; ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir** dsoy LFkkuh; çkf/kdj.k dks ykxw gksrs gSa] fuxe dks ughaA ‘‘kCn ^^jkT; ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir** tksM+ dj fo/kku&eaMy dk vk‘k; jkT; ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir leLr LFkkuh; çkf/kdj.k vf/kfu;e ds mica/kksa ds v/khu lfEefyr djus dk Fkk] fuxe esa in /kkj.k djus okys ;k fu;ksftr O;fDr;ksa dks vf/kfu;e dh O;kfIr ds ckgj j[kus dk ughaA
;g lR; gS fd uxjikfyd fuxe Xokfy;j jkT; ljdkj }kjk LFkkfir ugha gS vkSj og Hkkjr ds lafo/kku ds mica/kksa vFkkZr~ vuqPNsn 243&Fk vkSj 243&n ds v/khu xfBr gS] rFkkfi] fuxe ds in/kkjh vkSj deZpkjh mDr vf/kfu;e esa ifjHkkf"kr yksd lsod dh ifjHkk"kk dh ifjf/k ls ckgj ugha gSA ,slh ifjfLFkfr esa] ;|fi esa yksdk;qDr }kjk viukbZ xbZ rdZ.kk ls lger ugha gw¡] mUgksaus lgh fu"d"kZ fudkyk gSA ¼iSjk 16 ,oa 17½
¼2½ Hkkjr dk lafo/kku& &vuq- 243Fk rFkk 243n& &uxjikfyd fuxe Xokfy;j rn/khu xfBr gS& &rFkkfi in/kkjh vkSj deZpkjh yksd lsod gSA ¼iSjk 17½
1. This petition is filed by the petitioners challenging the findings on preliminary objections raised by the petitioners before the Lokayukt dated 24.6.2005 Annexure P-1 whereby the Lokayukt has held that he has jurisdiction to proceed against the petitioners.
2. Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner No.1 was the Mayor of Gwalior Municipal Corporation while petitioners No.2 to 6 are excouncillors of the Municipal Corporation. These persons were elected as mayor and councillors in the general elections held for Gwalior Municipal Corporation in the end of the year 1999 in accordance with the provisions of the M.P. Municipal Corporation Act, 1956. They were elected for a term of five years which expired in January, 2004.
3. A complaint was made before the Lokayukt, Madhya Pradesh about some irregularities in acceptance of tenders called by the Municipal Corporation for construction and repairs of roads. The Lokayukt, in exercise of the powers under section 7 of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 inquired the matter by deputing Chief Engineer. Chief Engineer on the preliminary enquiry found prima facie case against the petitioners as well as Municipal Commissioner, Engineers and officers of the Corporation. A show cause notice was issued by respondent No.1 to the petitioners and other members of the Mayor-in-Council as well as to the Municipal Corporation and Engineers, copy of which is Annexure P-7.
4. Petitioners raised a preliminary objection that the Lokayukt has no jurisdiction to entertain any matter against them, as they are not covered by the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (hereinafter, referred to as "Adhiniyam").
5. Shri P.N. Kelkar, learned counsel for the petitioners has invited attention of this Court to the definition of "public servant" as defined in section 2(g) of the Adhiniyam. According to him, the Adhiniyam is promulgated for making inquiries into the allegations against public servants. According to the petitioners, as they are not covered by the said definition, no action can be taken against them by the Lokayukt.
6. For proper appreciation of the argument advanced by Shri Kelkar, it will be necessary to first refer to the definition of public servant under the Adhiniyam. Said section reads as under:
"Public Servant" means a person falling under any of the following categories, namely:
(i) Minister;
(ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha and Neta Pratipaksha;
(iii) an officer referred to in clause (a);
(iv) an officer of an apex Cooperative Society or District Cooperative Society within the meaning of clause (u) of section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961);
(v) any person holding any office in, or any employee of:
(i) a Government company within the meaning of section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; or
(ii) a Corporation or local authority established by State Government under a Central or State enactment.
(vi)(a) Up-Kulpati, Adhyacharya and Kul-Sachiva of the India Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya constituted under section 3 of the Indira Kala Sangeet Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1956 (No.19 of 1956);
(b) Kulpati and Registrar of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya constituted under section 3 of the Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 (No.12 of 1963);
(c) Kulpati, Rector and Registrar of the Vishwavidyalaya constituted under section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh Vishwavidyalaya Adhiniyam, 1973 (No.22 of 1973).
7. Contention of the learned counsel for the petitioners is that the petitioners who are Mayor and ex-Councillors are not covered by any of the six categories mentioned in the said section. As per the orders passed by the Lokayukt, petitioners are covered under clause (v)(ii) of the said definition. According to caluse (v)(ii) a public servant includes a person who is covered by any of the categories men
