Back
2022 Supreme(Online)(KER) 27432
HIGH COURT OF KERALA
S.MANIKUMAR, CJ, SHAJI P.CHALY, J
ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC INSTRUCTIONS – Appellant
Versus
ANAGHA K. – Respondent
WP(C) NO. 405 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 91 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 418 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 552 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 583 OF 2018 | WP(C) NO. 595 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: V. Tekchand
For the Respondents: Sri.Arun Thomas, Sri.K.B.PRADEEP, Sri.JENNIS STEPHEN, Smt.KARTHIKA MARIA, Smt.MARIA ROY, SRI.SANTHOSH MATHEW, SRI.R.SUJA, SRI.VIJAY V. PAUL, Smt.VEENA RAVEENDRAN, Sri.JAMSHEED HAFIZ, Smt.T.S.SREEKUTTY
The Lok Ayukta cannot issue directives that exceed its jurisdiction, particularly concerning participant eligibility in educational events without substantiated grievances.
Headnote:(A) Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 - Sections 7(1), 2(h), 2(b), 2(k), 12 - Interim orders by Upa Lok Ayukta impugned - Jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta in entertaining complaints against administrative actions clarified - Positive directions not permitted - Interim relief not sustainable in absence of power to grant final reliefs. (Paras 1-20)
(B) Writ Petition - Challenge on jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta - Court observed that complaints lacking grievance or allegations of maladministration are not within the competence of Lok Ayukta to entertain - Prior judicial precedents considered to emphasize that interim orders should not undermine the statutory framework regulating educational competitions. (Paras 6, 8-10, 17, 19)
Facts of the case:
Several writ petitions were filed challenging interim orders of Upa Lok Ayukta directing participation in Kerala State School Kalolsavam despite appeals being unfavorable to the respondents. The Court examined whether such orders were justifiable under the Lok Ayukta Act given allegations of maladministration were not substantiated.
Findings of Court:
The Court concluded that Upa Lok Ayukta exceeded its jurisdiction in issuing binding interim orders where no grievance or mal-administration was established, rendering such orders unsustainable and infringing upon the defined roles and responsibilities outlined in the Lok Ayukta Act.
Issues: The principal issue revolved around whether the Upa Lok Ayukta could impose directions for student participation in school festivals without established grievances under the defined statutory framework of the Lok Ayukta Act.
Ratio Decidendi: The Court reaffirmed that without jurisdiction conferred by the Lok Ayukta Act, any positive directive from the Upa Lok Ayukta to admit parties into educational competitions was impermissible, reiterating the limited scope of Lok Ayukta’s power delineated by law.
Result: Writ petitions dismissed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. examination of jurisdiction and authority under the lok ayukta. (Para 1 , 18) |
| 2. arguments against the authority of lok ayukta to issue certain directives. (Para 3 , 8 , 10 , 12) |
| 3. legal observations on educational event participation and autonomy. (Para 4 , 6 , 9 , 14) |
| 4. findings related to misapplication of jurisdiction by lok ayukta. (Para 11 , 13 , 15 , 17 , 19) |
JUDGMENT
S. Manikumar, C. J.
In all these writ petitions, interim orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta in various complaints are challenged.
2. For brevity, it is suffice to extract one such order made in I. A. No. 2236 of 2017 in complaint No. 1468 of 2016, impugned in W. P. (C) No. 405 of 2018, as hereunder:-
“Having regard to the peculiar facts and circumstances of the case, respondent no. 3 is directed to permit the petitioner / complainant to participate in the item “Padyam Chollal – Tamil – HSS General” at the Kerala State School Kalolsavam 2017-18 scheduled to be held from 6.1.2018 at Thrissur provisionally and subject to further orders that may be passed in the complaint.”
3. Being aggrieved by the orders stated supra, instant writ petitions are filed on the grounds inter alia that as per Section 7 (1) of the Act, Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta, may investigate any action in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or allegation is made in respect of such actions.
4. As per Section 2 (h) of the Act, "grievance" means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequences of maladministration.
5. As per Section 2 (b) of the Act, "allegation" means that a public servant has abused his position to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to cause undue harm or hardship, that the public servant was actuated by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives or that the public servant was guilty of corruption for favoritism, nepotism or lack of integrity.
6. As per Section 2 (k) of the Act, "maladministration" means action taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of administrative function in any case where such action or the administrative procedure was unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory or that there was willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action.
7. Ext. P1 complaint does not reveal any grievance in consequence of maladministration, any maladministration of any sought by any administrative functionary or any allegation with regard to any public servant. In the said circumstances, neither the Lok Ayukta nor the Upa Lok Ayukta had any jurisdiction to entertain Ext. P1 complaint.
8. Petitioners have further contended that the Lok Ayukta, in terms of Section 12 of the Act, can only make recommendations to the concerned authorities and cannot make positive directions. It has been repeatedly laid down by this Court by way of judicial precedents that the Lok Ayukta could not issue positive directions.
9. It is trite law that no interim relief can be granted if there is no power to grant such final reliefs. In the said circumstances, Ext. P2 order dated 19.12.2017 impugned in W. P. (C) No. 405 of 2018, whereby a positive direction is issued to the writ petitioners to permit the 1st respondent in the writ petition, to take part in the School Youth Festival, is totally unsustainable in law.
10. Petitioners have also contended that even if it is deemed for argument's sake that there is "maladministration" as defined under the Act (not admitted), as per Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Upa Lok Ayukta can only forward a report to the concerned authority, which report is not also of binding nature. In the said circumstances, the Upa Lok Ayukta exceeded in jurisdiction conferred as per the Act in passing a binding interim order in the nature of Ext. P2.
11. Petitioners have submitted that as revealed from Ext. P1 complaint, the 1st respondent is aggrieved by the order in appeal preferred by her. According to the 1st respondent, there was no valid reason for denying the appeal and that
