WP(C) No.1637/2010

Page 1 of 20

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

W.P.(C) No. 1637 of 2010 & CMs 3294-95/2010

SAT PRAKASH RANA

..... Petitioner

Through: Mr. Sanjay Jain, Senior Advocate

with Mr. Jayant Tripathi and

Ms. Ruchi Saini, Advocates.

versus

THE LIEUTENANT GOVERNOR OF DELHI AND ANR.

..... Respondents

Through: Mr. N. Waziri, Standing counsel for

GNCTD.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

1.Whether reporters of local paper may be allowed

to see the judgment?

Yes

2.To be referred to the reporter or not?

Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be referred in the digest? Yes

O R D E R

10.03.2010

1.The Petitioner, a Member of the Legislative Assembly (MLA) of

Delhi, seeks the quashing of the proceedings before the Lokayukta,

Delhi in Complaint No.C-236/Lok/2009 titled “Ramesh Thakur v. Sat

Prakash Rana”. He also seeks the quashing of two separate orders

dated 17^th February 2010 passed by the Lokayukta in the said case.

2. Although the Lokayukta, Delhi was impleaded as Respondent No.1 in

this writ petition and was also represented by counsel, this Court is of

the view that an authority whose orders are under challenge, ought not to

be made a party to the proceedings. This position is settled by the

Supreme Court in Savitri Devi v. District Judge Gorakhpur 1999 (2)

2010:DHC:1394

WP(C) No.1637/2010

Page 2 of 20

SCC 577 and Fakeerappa v. Karnataka Cement Pipe Factory (2004) 2

SCC 473 and the Division Bench of this Court in Union Public Service

Commission v. Shiv Shambu 2008 IX AD (Del) 289. Accordingly, the

name of the Lokayukta , Delhi is deleted from the array of parties in the

present case. The cause title of this writ petition will read as “Sat

Prakash Rana v. The Lieutenant Governor of Delhi & Another”.

Consequently, the other respondents i.e. the Lt. Governor (LG) and Mr.

Ramesh Thakur will be Respondents 1 and 2 respectively.

3. The proceedings before the Lokayukta are traceable to a complaint

dated 7^th October 2009 filed before him by Respondent No.2 Mr.

Ramesh Thakur, a Superintending Engineer (SW) of the Delhi Jal Board

(DJB) working at Sector 4, Booster Pumping Station, R.K. Puram. In his

complaint Mr.Thakur stated that on the evening of 1^st October 2010

when he was in his office, the Petitioner who is an MLA elected from

the Bijwasan Constituency barged into his room at around 5.10 p.m. The

complaint alleged that the Petitioner enquired about some petty works of

tubewells of his constituency and then without provocation began

shouting. Paras 2 to 4 of the complaint narrate what, according to

Mr.Thakur, happened thereafter and read as under:

“2. I offered him chair. For a minute or two he enquired about

some petty works of tubewells of his constituency. Suddenly

without any provocation or any argument, he started shouting and

asked “Who runs Delhi Jal Board”. I replied that it is run by Delhi

Government.

3. At the top of his voice he said that in my areas of Mahipalpur

and Rangpuri your Zonal Engineer is telling that I am under

2010:DHC:1394

WP(C) No.1637/2010

Page 3 of 20

pressure to continue the boring work at Rangpuri first, instead of

Mahipalpur, whereas I (MLA) want this to be done at Mahiplapur.

4. It would be important to mention that DJB had awarded works

of drilling of Tubewells one each at Rangpuri and Mahipalpur on

17.09.09 respectively, and the drilling machine had gone to

Rangpuri to execute the work. I told the MLA that I was not

aware about the stark of work at Rangpuri or at Mahipalpuri.

Immediately after this Sh. Rana started giving choicest abuses, got

up from his chair and started hitting me. I was totally stunned by

such ferocious attack. He had hit me so badly that I started feeling

severe pain and pleaded to stop this nonsense.”

4. Mr