The Lokayukta is a necessary party in proceedings under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, affirming its quasi-judicial role.

COMMON ORDER

W. Diengdoh, J. - This Court vide order dated 06.09.2023, on the prayer of the learned Advocate General appearing for the State/petitioners to amend the main petition, that is, WP(C) No. 363 of 2021 by effectively striking off the names of the respondents/Chairperson and the Secretary, Meghalaya Lokayukta, respectively, has allowed the same to be brought up by way of a separate application, with liberty to the respondents to respond to the same, which was done so in due course.

2. It may be mentioned that in the main petition, the case of the State/petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 herein has filed a complaint before the Lokayukta under Section 20(1) of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 with allegations made therein. This complaint was then registered as Complaint Case No. 5 of 2020.

3. The Hon'ble Chairperson, Lokayukta having taken cognizance of the said complaint has inter alia, directed for an inquiry to be made thereon and in the process, had passed several related orders dated 23.06.2020, 30.07.2020, 26.02.2021 and 18.03.2021. Being aggrieved with such orders passed by the Chairperson, Meghalaya Lokayukta, this Court was accordingly approached with an application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash all consequential orders and the entire proceedings therein.

4. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Advocate General, has submitted that the State/petitioners has preferred the said application under Article 226 of the Constitution of India to challenge the process conducted by the Hon'ble Lokayukta who has ordered investigation to be initiated on the said complaint filed, which act is beyond the purview of the powers and functions of the Lokayukta under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014.

5. However, while filing the said writ petition, the State/petitioners has realized that inadvertently, the Hon'ble Chairperson Lokayukta and the Secretary, Lokayukta have been arrayed as party respondents in the proceedings, when in fact, only the complainant, that is, the respondent No. 3 ought to have been impleaded as respondent.

6. It is the submission of the learned AG that the Lokayukta being a quasi-judicial body, is neither a proper nor a necessary party to the lis since the Lokayukta is not bound to defend its own order in a related proceeding.

7. To further this contention, the learned AG has referred to the various provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, beginning with the definition part found in Section 2, then to Section 11 which speaks of the power of the Lokayukta to constitute an Inquiry Wing for the purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry into any alleged offence and Section 14(1) which specifically lists down those public servants and officials who comes within the ambit of the power to be inquired into as regard any allegation of corruption was also cited. The procedure to be followed upon receipt of any complaint as found under Section 20(1) was also pointed out.

8. The learned AG has then laid stress on the provision of Section 27(1) of the Act to say that this provision has empowered the Lokayukta with the powers of a Civil Court with all the trappings of a regular court, such as powers to summon witnesses and for production of evidence.

9. Again, the learned AG has submitted that Section 51 of the Act states that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie against the Lokayukta or its officers, employees, agency or any person, in respect of any act done in good faith or intended to be done under the Act or rules and regulations made thereunder, which is clearly a bar for the petitioner to implead the Lokayukta in these proceedings.

10. In support of the above contention, the learned AG has referred to the case of Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 25917 of 2021, para 7 and the case of Additional Tahsildar Anr v. Urmila G. Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC 1613, para 11 13.

11. The learned AG has reiterated that the Lokayukta being a judicial