Telangana High Court
M/S.Usha Kiron Movies Ltd vs The State Of Ap., Prl.Secy.Revenue And 3 ... on 21 March, 2024
THE HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE ALOK ARADHE
AND
THE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI
WRIT PETITION No.31538 of 2012
ORDER:(Per the Hon'ble the Chief Justice Alok Aradhe) Mr. B.Nalin Kumar, learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner.
2. In this writ petition, the petitioner has assailed the validity of the order dated 27.04.2012 by which the erstwhile Lokayuktha has taken cognizance of a news item and has directed the revenue authorities to take appropriate action in accordance with law for removal of encroachment. Pursuant thereto, the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar had issued the proceedings dated 18.08.2012 directing removal of encroachment, which is also assailed in this writ petition.
3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned action is de hors the provisions of the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983.
2
4. We have considered the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner and have perused the record.
5. Section 7 of the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983, which provides for matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, reads as under:
"7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa Lokayukta:- (1) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of,-
(i) a Minister or a Secretary; or
(ii) a Member of either House of the State
Legislature; or
iii) a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation
constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; or (iiia) a Vice Chancellor or a Registrar of a University;
(iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta, in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could 3 have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.
(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Upa-
Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant, other than those referred to in sub-section (1), in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.
(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2), the Lokayukta may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any allegation in respect of an action which may be investigated by the Upa-Lokayukta under that sub-section, whether or not complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action.
(4) Where two or more Upa-Lokayuktas are appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta may by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act:
Provided that no investigation made by the Upa- Lokayukta under this Act and no action taken or thing done by him in respect of such investigation shall be called in question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order."
6. Thus, from perusal of the aforesaid provision, it is evident that the action may be initiated under the 4 provisions of the Telangana Lokayukta Act, 1983, on a public servant where the complaint against him involves an allegation made in respect of action taken or omission done.
7. The petitioner neither holds a public office nor is a public servant.
8. Therefore, the impugned order dated 27.04.2012 passed by the erstwhile Lokayukta and the consequential order dated 18.08.2012 passed by the Deputy Collector and Tahsildar cannot be sustained in the eye of law.
9. The impugned orders are accordingly quashed. However, it is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion with regard to the subject matter of the dispute and it is open for the aggrieved persons to take recourse to such remedy as may be available to them in law.
10. With the aforesaid liberty, the Writ Petition is disposed of.
5
Miscellaneous applications pending, if any, shall stand closed. However, there shall be no order as to costs.
______________________________________ ALOK ARADHE, CJ ______________________________________ ANIL KUMAR JUKANTI, J 21.03.2024 vs