Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Del) 7231
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Anil Kshetarpal, Harish Vaidyanathan Shankar, JJ
VINOD KUMAR KATARIA – Appellant
Versus
CVO MOC AND ORS. – Respondent
W.P.(C) 1687/2025, CM APPL. 8218/2025 & CM APPL. 8219/2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. B.P. Vaishnav
For the Respondents: Dr. S.S. Hooda, Mr. Aayushman, Mr. Yashpal Rangi
Judicial review under Article 226 cannot substitute findings of expert bodies unless a jurisdictional error or legal invalidity arises.
Headnote:(A) Article 226 of the Constitution of India - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 - The petitioner alleged irregularities and corruption in the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training, claim disposed by the Lokpal, stating allegations disclosed administrative irregularities not corruption under the PC Act. (Paras 1, 2, 21, 36)
(B) Jurisdiction - It is established that the writ jurisdiction does not extend to reappreciating the findings of fact of statutory authorities; judicial review is limited to ensuring no jurisdictional or procedural irregularity exists. (Paras 24, 25, 36)
Facts of the case:
The petitioner claimed irregularities and corruption in CCRT involving illegal appointments and procedural lapses, leading to the filing of a complaint to Lokpal, which was dismissed for lack of evidence of corruption.
Findings of Court:
The court upheld the Lokpal's order, finding no illegality or procedural infirmity, dismissing the writ petition as devoid of merit.
Issues: Whether the allegations warranted a re-examination of the Lokpal's findings regarding corruption and administrative misconduct.
Ratio Decidendi: The court resolved that the Lokpal's examination was comprehensive and findings were supported by the evidence; mere administrative lapses do not constitute corruption under the PC Act.
Result: Writ petition dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. introduction of the writ petition (Para 1 , 2) |
| 2. petitioner's contentions (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. respondent's defense (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court's analysis (Para 15 , 16 , 18) |
| 5. legal framework and limitation (Para 20 , 22 , 25) |
| 6. final judgment (Para 36 , 37) |
HARISH VAIDYANATHAN SHANKAR, J.
1. The present Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India1 assails the Order dated 30.04.20242, passed by the learned Lokpal of India3 in C-12016/159/2023- Lokpal/463, whereby the complaint filed by the Petitioner alleging irregularities and corruption in the Centre for Cultural Resources and Training4, was disposed of on the ground that the allegations disclosed administrative irregularities and not acts of corruption within the meaning of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 5.
BRIEF FACTS:
2. The Petitioner approached the learned Lokpal on 21.06.2023, by a Complaint No. 159/2023, alleging large-scale irregularities in the functioning of CCRT, including the appointment and promotion of officers, extensions and re-employments granted contrary to the Department of Personnel and Training6 guidelines, misuse of public funds and scholarship grants, and engagement of private counsel without requisite sanction from the competent authorities.
3. On 29.08.2023, the Full Bench of the learned Lokpal directed the Central Vigilance Commission7 to conduct a Preliminary Inquiry under Section 20 (1)(a) of the Lokpal and Lokayuktas Act, 2013 8, and submit a report within six weeks.
4. Pursuant to the directions of the learned Lokpal, the CVC, vide Office Memorandum dated 10.04.2024, forwarded a Preliminary Inquiry Report along with the comments of the Competent Authority. Upon consideration of the report and other materials placed on record, the learned Lokpal, vide its Order dated 30.04.2024, observed that the allegations primarily related to administrative and procedural lapses and did not disclose the commission of any offence under the PC Act.
5. Accordingly, the learned Lokpal disposed of the complaint, observing that no further investigation was warranted in the matter.
6. The Petitioner states that thereafter he sought relevant documents through applications under the Right to Information Act, 2005 . Upon obtaining the fact-finding report and observing what he perceived as bias and procedural irregularities in the inquiry process, the Petitioner submitted a representation dated 29.07.2024 before the learned Lokpal seeking a review of the said order.
7. Since no response was received to his representation, the Petitioner, being aggrieved, has approached this Court invoking its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution.
CONTENTIONS OF THE PETITIONER:
8. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would contend that the learned Lokpal erred in disposing of the complaint without affording the Petitioner an opportunity of being heard and without furnishing a copy of the CVC’s report.
9. It would further be contended that the inquiry conducted by the Ministry of Culture is vitiated by the principle of nemo judex in causa sua, since the Ministry exercises direct administrative control over CCRT and based upon the Ministry’s report, the decision of the learned Lokpal is concluded.
10. The learned Counsel for the Petitioner would submit that the fact-finding report and subsequent audits of CCRT disclose several instances of illegal appointments, misappropriation of funds, and procedural irregularities, all of which clearly fall within the ambit of “corruption” as defined under the PC Act.
CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENT:
11. The learned Counsel for the Respondents would contend that the learned Lokpal, being a statutory authority, has acted strictly within the bounds of its jurisdiction and in accordance with the procedure prescribed by law.
12. It would further be submitted that the Impugned Order of the learned Lokpal is based on a thorough and reasoned consideration of the preliminary inquiry report submitted by
