Abhay M. Naik, J.

1. This writ appeal has been preferred against an order dated 17-9-2008 passed in W.P. No. 4308/08 by the learned Single Judge of this Court holding thereby that Lokayukta has jurisdiction to enquire the cases against the Petitioner/Appellant under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. Short facts involved herein are that Appellant is working as Tahsil Coordinator (Tahsil Sanyojak) in Gram Raksha Samiti, Gwalior. On receipt of complaint against him, Lokayukta set up a preliminary enquiry at Case No. 4/2008 on 9-7-2008. An FIR at Crime No. 23/2008 has been registered against the Petitioner/Appellant under Sections 13(1)(e) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. W.P. No. 4308/08 was submitted on the ground that the Petitioner is not a public servant and this being so, Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to hold enquiry against him. Accordingly, enquiry proceedings and consequent FIR stand vitiated.

3. Learned Single Judge held that the Petitioner is a public servant as defined in M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and accordingly Lokayukt has jurisdiction to enquire cases relating to Prevention of Corruption Act against the Petitioner. Consequently, the Writ Petition was dismissed on 17-9-2008 by the impugned order at admission stage, hence, the present appeal.

4. Ms. Deeksha Mishra, Advocate, for Appellant, Shri R. P. Rathi, Government Advocate, for Respondents No. 1 and 5/State, Shri J. D. Suryavanshi, Special Public Prosecutor, for Respondents No. 2 to 4 and Shri Prashant Sharma, Advocate for intervenor made their respective submissions.

5. It is contended by the learned Counsel for the Appellant that the Petitioner is member of Gram Raksha Samiti which is a voluntary organization. He does not perform duty either under M.P. Gram Tatha Nagar Raksha Samiti Adhiniyam, 1999 or M.P. Gram Tatha Nagar Raksha Samiti Rules, 2003 (for brevity Adhiniyam, 1999 and Rules 2003). Moreover, in view of the decision of M.P. State Administrative Tribunal dated 3-9-1999 in T.A. No. 2754/88, the Petitioner/Appellant cannot be treated as public servant According to learned Counsel for the Appellant, Gram Raksha Samiti (hereinafter referred to VDS) was created under the executive instructions and there are no statutory rules governing the service conditions. Executive instructions were also not issued in exercise of statutory powers. This being so, the Petitioner is not and cannot be treated as public servant. To buttress the submission, reliance has been placed on the decision of the Apex Court in the cases of S.S. Dhanoa v. Municipal Corporation, Delhi and Ors. (1981) 3 SCC 431, Dr. S.L. Agarwal v. The General Manager, Hindustan Steel Ltd. 1971 MPLJ (SC) 825 : (1970) 1 SCC 177, R.S. Nayak v. A.R. Antulay (1984) 2 SCC 183, The State of Gujarat v. S.H. Manshankar Prabhashankar Dwivedi (1972) 2 SCC 392 and Institution of A.P. Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta, A.P. and Ors. v. T. Rama Subba Reddy and Anr. (1997) 9 SCC 42.

6. Per contra, learned Counsel for the Respondents submitted that the Petitioner is public servant within the ambit of definition contained in M.P. Lokayukt Evam Up-Lokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 and no interference is warranted in the impugned order.

7. Considered the submissions and perused the record.

8. Concept of Gram Raksha Samiti was introduced in the dacoity affected districts of the State of M.P. in the year 1956. Later on, in the year 1996, the State Government has by resolution constituted such Samitis in the rest of the State. Thereafter, the State Government decided with the advice of Police Reform Committee to enact a legislation to effectively utilize the concept of Gram Raksha Samiti for a more efficient police. Consequently, Gram Raksha Samiti Adhiniyam, 1999 was enforced w.e.f. 4-1-2000 with a preamble to provide for the constitution of Gram Tatha Nagar Raksha Samitis for the maintenance of peace and order in the State of Madhya Pradesh and their powers and duties. It has b