B M Muniappa S/O Muninanjaiah vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 19 January, 2010

[Cites 11, Cited by 0]

Karnataka High Court

B M Muniappa S/O Muninanjaiah vs The State Of Karnataka Rep By Its Secy on 19 January, 2010

Equivalent citations: 2010 (2) AIR KAR R 462, AIR 2010 (NOC) (SUPP) 953 (KAR.)

Bench: Anand Byrareddy

 

EN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BANGALORE

DATED THIS THE13"'DAY OF JANUARY4':é7;VO:%'()'VA:~ 
BEFORE:   1' " 

THE HON'BI.,.E MR. 

WRIT PETYTION No..;i__.'§]88 652003 (Gm 

BETWEEN:

1. B.M.Muniappa, V 
Son of M'uninanjaiah;~  _ V
Aged ab()L;t'!3_l y¢a'ts';' ' . " 

R_e:iVre'd..VE;{e;;u{iv: E.{;;gii1e€2_:f,H_ 

;vVBanga§0f<: Mi1,ha:1<aga'rz1 Paiike,

'Residing'2it':N,gi;22U{},"Hfrd 'B' Main,
Sm C:"oss,'  'L1ziy'Q_i1't; 

 '  

' 'VB;r1gaVlcs-r<§;45'6'{) (_)?3-{).  PETFFIONER

  ShEi;'i:«B£B;.BajenIri, Advocate)

1.  The State of Ka1'nataka.
" Represented by its Secretary,
 Urban Deveiopment Department,

 Sachivalaya--II,

M.S.Buildings,

Bangatl0re--56() {)0}.

fix.)

The C0mm_issi011e1',
Corporation of the City of of' Bangatlore,

8



ix)

N.R.Square,
BangaIore--56U 002.

3. The Hon'bie Lokayukta.
M.S.Buiidings,
Bangalore~560 001, 1 * i_  -3     
Represented by its Registrar.   

(By Sh_ri.Re\/athy Adinath Narde',""l:¥igh Court Gt.»-vei*'n'nreVnijPleader
for Respondent.i and 3.  _ it   *  

Shri.Ashok Hz.-irztnahztili and Asst>ei.;§'tes"'t':')r Res'p(>::deiiit.2,
Shri.M.Sudhakar Pei, Acléxiocatc-i for Re~.spo'ndent.3)

Thtis, Wv;:i_tPeti_t.ion._is.fiie'durtdefr Articles 226 and 227 of the
Constiztution_ii(>t"vifndia,' prztying toquash the report of investigation
conducted' by  Lokayukta dated: 31.1.2002 vide
Annexure;E and=.th'efeonseiquentiai order dated: 4.4.2002 vide
Annexure-G~.by*the 'Res--poi2det1t.! and ete.._

  petition having been heard and reserved on 08.01.2010

.and coming_on, for pronouncement of orders this day, the Court
 __ deti veA1'e_d.ithe. to! low i n g: --

ORDER

Heerd the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

2. The facts of the case are as follows:

The petitioner was said to be working as the Executive Engineer of the Bruhat Bangalore Mahanegztrzt Pztlike, (hei'einafter Z 3 referred to ' the BBMP' for brevity), earlier know_n.__as the Bangalore City Corporation, and retired from service ori"atsjt';»1ir;.ing the age of supemrrnuatioii on 3l.3.2()()0. Cer*t'a-i._r:r ei'wiii' m:kg' executed by the petitioner were sought tobei"inviest.i_gatediby_the Standing Committee for Aectitints of the._BBMP.sV.v'iiE"Ahei Ctiniirriititeitfe, found certain irregularities in er{e<:iition of'-theiiworjks and the payments made thereof re1:=._o1't;_wasgseririin this regard to the Commissioner ofthe Cor*porra:t'it)n';._"Thei'pet'itioner was promptly placed Jtinderi"V§uVspehsii().n"«wa's on 22.2.1999 and a report was stlbmitteidtothie _Goy'ern'n1ei'r1t_with a recommendation to refer the matterto the"~LoE<:'ty;.,aktzr mi iiivestigatiorr. While the petitioner wasv_»"5reinsie1ted irrto.._...S€1'vices upon directions issued by the Seoretziry :to_iGo_ve.rnment. Urban Development Department. The eofﬁeeii'of*«.£h'eifL,o§<:ayukta was however addressed to take up inyestigzitioinii1..t:Arider' the Lokayukta Act, 1984 and to furnish a

-- report toﬂthe"Go\/emment. Though there was an earlier report dirrsofar the allegations against the petitioner and others was "-y":tAo'nt;ei}-tied submitted by the Assistarit Executive Engineer, the 3 4 same was cancelled by the Lokayukta and a fresh investigation entrusted to the Chief Engineer and the Supei'i1ilt'en'duing Engineer of the Lokayuktha. They, in turn, held in respect of the works which were tii1der's-:.raiti1i~:y .a_nci._drew a i rnahazar, though it was at a poi_rrt tiftiirte, thi'e.e-".s,yeai's afte"r< the completion of the said works.

it further t1'E.lf1Spi1"i?§'§'~'..[h£1"ll theVil'Lr;)l';ayukta himself took up investigation and,_the petiit-ioner'--.was a hearing. The petitioner rnade la'reqtie»St;'*h_a'virrg regard to the nature of the case. that since 'the ttase w.t--is'«..l?{eiiig investigaited by the Lol<ayukta petitievi-t--ers ought to be permitted to take the _2Issi_s'taniceiof"at 'iegai Counsel. No orders were passed on this request. l l The Lokayukta completed his investigatioii and sent a

-report to the Government. dated 31.i.20()2. Since the Lokayukta = given special attention to the case of the petitioner and others and since it was appreheitdeti that the first responclent' would 3 promptly pass an order accepting the recommendations, the petitioner had pointed out that having regard to J[1'1C_...T.C-i'l:'t0'l:" Sub» Section (2) of Section 7, the Lokayukta was with the authority to investigate the coinplaintj;and":i_tiiei'e..'»».wiass_Tnoi compliance with Section 9('3)7oi'_'_ theh'A_ct in the"upetitioinerii not; having been furnished with a report the.'Sta_nding3 Cornn'1i.ttee for Accounts of BBMP} iw;jts4""tih'e.tA'genesis of the entire investigation and_'i'arther"reiport::.'ii i'iii'st_respondent, however, igno1'ed the ire'pi'eseniatio%n'«arid passed an order dated 4.4.2002, in i1]iti£1EiIi3hjg).CiipOltva1gtt~ii1{S{u"[.ijé*'§)titiIi()1]E:r in accordance with the 1'€C041§T}iﬁ't3I1d3.Ii()'I'1.Adb}/i the Lokayukta. it is this which is under ,ic'ha1ie.ngeiAin4t'heV present petition.

'iii?-he*?;iC.ounse] for the petitioner while reiterating the j abovepsequence of events, would submit that while Submsection f:1}"o..t' Section 7 of the Act enurnerates that the public servants, complaints against whom could be investigated by the Lokayukta. Subsection (2) of the Section 7 empowers the Upa1i()ka1yiikta to 3 investigate the complaints against actions of public servants other than those which fall within the jurisdiction of the":l;('i-lcjayiuvkta. Since the petitioner was not a public servant as'i"s.peciified Sunder' Section (1) of Section 7, the C()lnpl;l£lif1I_:Atigi;tliﬁ1St'I'[l'}t_f.:rit.xG.({)iLll§l not '4 have been investiuated b the Loka ukta and he.nice.. his re ort withoutjurisdiction. Consequentlj/;.the_uimpugnedordver passed on such a recoinmendation«-_V:by 'the;'first'uresppondent is also not sustainable and hence 1iab'l'e'»to:'be 'q.u'ashec_l. so S vThe'--Counvseji'-~wt;.ul'dt.ifui*ther° submit that though Sub~section (2A) of Section 7_ of Act authorises the Lokayukta or ..i_Upa_l5(:kay:ul<ita to 'inv-e.sti'gate into the complaints referred to it by _the"Gov.erl1i.i,i*:e_nt--"of Karnataka, the same cannot be read in isol__ationv.. .;l:'ili_e'}Sub--sectitins of Section 7, namely, (l'),(2) and (2A) "are to read together or else it leads to an incongruous situation.

i =S'ul:\--.s'ection (?.A) does contain a non--abstante clause. the effect of it " ~~-the same would have to be understood in the light of the law, as explztined by the Sttprenie Court as to the implication of a non- Z abstante clause, in the case of R.S.RCZg['lLH1ClI/'E vs. c--"S.tczze of Kczrnatrzka, AIR 1992 SC 81.

It is also contended that SLtb--'s'eet.ig>i15_'('2Ai)' lSec:t_io'n_ . which reads as follows:

(ZA) Notwithstanding sections (l) and.' (2),3i-the"f.Lc:.1;ayui<ta*-.Q11_J§an Upalolqtyukta taken by or with the general it public servant.;' 1'ef_'en='ed"ato' --._hiin ifby the State ;VGoveii'Iniji»eVnt ii i Tl1ee..uCTot1n$'c_l VV.'{'()'LElGj" Stlblllit that ti pre.--condit.ion for the LC_)':Kl9.y:il__l'(.tLlV"[() inV'cs.t_i___gate any action taken by a public servant is *onl'y "i'eife1'i"ed to him by the State Government. In the case ()An1_4lil2lI1{,l_,.iii'li«:\_ evident that the matter was referred to the Lokayukta in tei'1n_§3()f Annexure--C by the first respondent. The Counsel for it =.viihe_.petiti()ne1' would submit that in the absence of definition of ~7i'State Government', it is the definition found in the Karnataka General Clauses Act, which would be applicable and in terms of the definition of 'Government' under Section 3(l6) read with 5 8 Article l66 of the Constitution of india, all executive actions of the Government of a State shall be expressed to be tajli{'en""iVn'.,tﬂhe name of the 'Governor' and would submit that"

therefore cannot be held to be a to by the State Government. A 9 A In this regard, he would of the Supreme Court in GL£[CIbr:(.it:)" rind vs. State of Gujarat, (1996).? SCC:.2'o5v:.E1:ndit'het¢fo.re,iAivvﬂtlld submit that the iinpugned order be'q:_i;islietl,'''''---- ' '

4. ,Co'u_nsel" the respondent no.3, namely, the Ltikttjrzuktia wou1d"con_t_e,nd that the reference made is a reference by°the_ 'ﬁétiwernintent of Karnataka, represented by a competent authority._ .Tii_eAf3etitione1"s contention is therefore not tenable. He ﬁwouid "ftirt;-1"1ei' seek to justify the action of the Lokayulaa in having " :;(;tn,ti_uL:ted an investigation it was a reference under Sebwsection it ...t_;iA) of Section 7. The tiﬁice of the Lt')E<a}/tiktti had, by way of abundant caution, soughglarlification regards the reference affordi:1g_ ample opportunity to the petitioner. it up is contended that the present petition is prem2ttu1ie..:1n'cl to be rejected.

5. By way of a rejt)inderi"tflia't» the ipeti_t_i'oner thatia reference under section is 'b_v theiSitateiGove:7nment and the Principal VA 4C;3"i'()V€I'llll1{;3ll'[, I Urban to the position of the._}ove'rniiri't:;}:A_ in the name of the State iE}ove1'mnen:t'.-»in tliis'*;.eg3i'd, attention is drawn to Rules 18 and 19 of"-thee» Karnataika:Jﬁovernment (Transaction of Business) A Wl1lCit*«~f*3&dS as follows:

orders or instruments made or executed by or i of Governanent shall be expressecl to be made or executed in the name of the Governor of ii Kamataka or for grant of leave for a part or whole of the period of extentled service accruing under the p1'oviso to clause ta) of rule 95 oi' Karnateka Civil Services Rules which amounts to extension of service. 3 19(1) Orders and tnStruIt1€.ntf~; made and executedwm the name oi' the Governor of Karnataka. xl1:1i'i"t..he--._"'-- attthetttieated by the s'tgnatu1'e of a _.i7¥?ri:'1'ci.V§'3v:':l__"i.- Secretary, a Secretary. an Additionat..SeeI'etar'y:;' a S eeial Seeretar , a Joint"Seereta1*«r, ut>7 : _ . J. 'V v, Secretary, an Under Secrett'tr3}'«V(ap'--1i_d)e'sk O'f'fi'ce1f).. any other o§'f':eer ht)Idn1V;g'~.,tl1exe"posts; tun: t'*3A,'-'.;fk').,'f'.,fiV§iIt:) basis) or by such other {$:*ti;¢e:~_as xpecialiy empowered t=vl'te._&.(]0»'eten'o:'VAVVin the manner specified'he.i()W;*~atnd V"§:.iLg'1i2ttLtre shat! be deen1ed.to.lje of such order ot*.i.t1S--trurr§en_t. ~. 3 By ordr::'=._Vand"~i.n'"»the name of the Governor of '' §_V(_arnataka.V '--

(Signature) '«Ndn't'er and designation of the Off':cer authorised to ";.(2) Amendment to the Karnataka Civil Services Ruies. (Manual ot'C.'o11ti11ge11t fi,\'§7CI§dilL1t'C. i<.arnata1<a ¥*ina11c':ai Code and i<.arnataka Treasury Code} which are of it routine nature and which do not involve any question of pohey or heavy financiai CO£T1mitIT1€nl.'~; Indy be made by the Secretary to Government F'1nanci:tl. Fittttttee Department with the prior approval 2 of the Ministerwin~ei12t:'ge of the Finance Depjd_rt131ettl:t'~i. and the Chief Minister."

And it is further asserted that itheview i.in:G--i£laibrcz(§j' it Keslzmrrao Paril referred to supra, of J.P.Bhcmsal vs. Slate of i"{'~,_7i_():'(i).?--ii'-5 S134 insofa1' the c()mpetieﬁ:g_~¢ conduct an investigat'iL)n against res inte§.;ru and is covered b at i:lec;is'ii(.>n.0'? this co.ur't-- in theease of S.N.He Ide its'. Lamgglzklizl, *r2i(*2r)%4j;:é?;41'<'14i'5e5A. l The BBMP would firstly seek to draw attentivon to iA=.ttAiCle'i' l6i6(3v) of the Constitution of India to submit thgtt an executive action of the Government of 21 State shall i ~be.-._e«xp'tesjsed'~:;t'u;i" be taken in the name of the Governor as per A:ti(:le""i:E6'6(l), it is provided under Article 166(3) that the iGo'v.ternor shall make rules for the more Convenient t.r23.ns2-iction of the business of the Government of the State, and for the allocation among Ministers of Hg said business insofar as it is not business 1 iii Deputy Minister eases requiring immediate action, on his own responsibility.

(3) The Minister~in~ehnrge may that cases of ininor importance may he disposednii. L"

of by 21 Deputy Secretary 0r.a*r1"U.nder' See4i'ettii'y "

of the Department.

(4) A copy of every direeI._io:'t giV0}':"t1t'..dl{3E'. 5'Ui7~i'Lii€ (3) shall he SLli3iiii"!.iV:i..it3£.i to the .(_d'ti)"v'i'.i|i'.11()Vi;i.t; (5) BeE'o1:e the sei:nnciiiL_day'~ot' every ' '\v"v[.€'.('_'/.!<i3'(.} cornpiiation of .:issued during the preceding t('i"'ptiIi:{iy._ -decisions and i;i2ttt.i2:ifst)i' i_i11p__or--t_iinee s'h2i_'i--[..he_i3repnred and s_ubinittridv..irnmediiiteiy to the Chief Secretary for "treins1n.i:;s_i()i?trlo"---.t_h'e'°iChiei' Minister and the Go'w:i'ii1(.\.if,V V i"'Note ii":"--«.W__i_1evr'e the case relates to it matter in ' ,w-hic--i: a Minister is personaity interested, it shalt it s:e1i.t--~ti) the Chief" Minister who [nay dispose . .(')i"i,'.i]ii'T1S€iii or pass it on to any other i\/Iinistei' ii }_for disposai.

i 2. Where sanction or approval of Government is reqtaired for any proposal from any Company. society, teen] body or other institution it shalt be examined by the Department Coneerited in the same manner as at ease beit')n§;i1ig to such 'é depui'tinei'tt"'.

ll?

And the Counsel therefore would submit that from a p.lttin.4i_jre.adi11g of the said Rule, it ctinnot be said that the ret'ere_nt:e first respondent in terms of Anhexu1ie»C._is bad in'l:1§v. .l"H4eiVpi'ace's' _ if reliance on the following decisions ofthe._Suiprehaei'Court:' (ct) C/2.iIr"al€kl'ta and atmr/wr S'Ie:tIe /5954 SC 1823 M (19 ) M.Bala K I't'..s'/ma Reclch-'i 2008 SC 1754. in the at§'o.,\je»i,cliit*:;_ti'm$tances, the question that arises for consiclemtion by this it;.(1)iE,l':«'.l..~'il.'.s'., whether the impugned order is bad in v,iew of Stub.-¢sectit>n (2A) of Section 7 of the Karhataka _ Llol<2tyu'l<tti ..iA::_t,"--..i984, which requires that at reference is to be ittagie by: Government in the Loi<ayui<ta conducting an investiiggttiott against a public servant and whether 21 Demi Official i'--..let»te.r'i issued by the Principal Secretary. Ut'b21n Development " ~-{l)epartment, can be construed a reference made by the State Government to the Lokayukta.

6 E6 The question is no longer res imegra stands gttiicsgtateired by the decisions cited by the Counsel for the p€[lllt)I_l€.1'. }'i,il¢t}fZufcti.g Keshavrao Pan'! supra, the (.]Ll€-Sli()[]..W'di-}._ wl1etl1et'the a'pp_ijop'1'.latle . l Government under Sub--section (2)ot':tS_ection* of 'tF:1"e._.vl@'t1.:}d Acquisition Act 1 of £894 ma dccitietl the tab}wit.)n's;;¥;iii's¢a by the claimants under the Ac.t;°~..fo1' fuittlheiilacttion L1ndei"'se'cti0t1 6 of the Act.

The bac_kgt'§;iIahd Was ia$"f'olloyt/sf' "

A S'--t2i1'ttlit'1gfC_ottirn'itte'e of the Surat Municipal Corporation had, by a 'i'€.$(_)l".lli()E'l, '2;u'tho.~i'ised action to be taken to acquire the l211..i§1'lf~ reEievingv-------traffic congestion near the Surat Railway 3§i1.ill\)!':ll{"«._r~E3Ql'llliSSl()!1 wa.~_.; granted by the Town Planning De.partmen_t'j.t--oiti1e Corporation to acquire the land under the Town Planttiltig Act. A declaration was also made in that behalf. A l 'gi\i'ot-ii'icatit')n under section 4(' l) of the Act was published. Notice "under Section 5A was issued and the appellant, who was before the Supreme Court, had objected to the 'c1CqLll$i[i()it. The Land 8 Acquisition Officer conducted an enquiry and Sub:'i'I.ﬁ['r:E;d_"'EL':1i¢t)'0rt to the Government for a decision. The tiispute»..;1"i*ose--.as.i'egard.s this aspect, namely, whether a dec'»§_sioi._'-1~had'ibee.n'''-tai<e:n.__the ' State Government to proceed_ with the acqtiisiition..._Vorfto stop further action in that behait. iouiiiti..t_hat;§the revenue department of the State aC3o'vern_n'1»ei1t,V'hat§.VVw'ritten to the Section Officer of the~i'Re_ven§t1e. Notification under Section 6 ciouid"'--no't"i:}e i'trvi.e'w of the objection as weii as thedviegaili'positioini _W.hiie a reference was aiso made to a revenu"e_ C.i_i'c'ular.n'f'rThe.i_i\%i..i,n'i§ti'y of Urban Development did not agree with,_theVM'inisti'y" (if-Revetiue and accordingly they moved tiief-Cihie'i' Miii'i';:,.ter to have the issue reexamined. But, before a de'c.is'ioan-. was take'n',""Vthe Section Officer of the Revenue E)epat:"t,rne,nt diC'0Ii1~i'iiLiniCEl{€d its decision to the Land Acquisition (Jtficertttw:tfiz--iihdi'21w further proceedings. Since no further steps were .taken to stop the proceedingst the appeliant had approached the.__Hi§h Court. by way of a writ petition. The High Court heid '~_that--7the Government had not taken at decision under sub msection € 7'} the rmrnc' of the Govemnr. II is not till I/V7Vi'.sl'el._k'e f'om1u/it)' ix c)f).\'c»r't*¢»(i that the ctc"Iim-2 V .*'eg(:i'decI' as {/'I(!! ojfI'l'1e Sictit'. Cons'!i'ttt:'tit)1-zttllil .s'peak1'r1g, flit' Comici! of M/_7mLs'!ei1s' t't-j'il'eHléti2't.l.i}s?£€lti§ and as the Head Qfthe SICt!€:,'._: I/1etG}.2t1léam1t)rf "isltol UL'! win': {/19 aid (}('v>ti:'(J'll-'i'.(.'(? "4';ff.l'lI'.lI£' C'§2.r.tF.tt,ti'l' ti/' fl/Ii1ti.s'{er"s. T/remit);-'e. "':.il'Vl"~--,r/rt? él("/3-"1"-{".(.'V by Jim G()t-'er';-1()i:'yicrws {3,'--7--fl"ié»--Ct)»tiht'i'l loaf" i'l.{l.t';~2.z',sv:§e>t'.s' do not get c"1'_\,-'V.s"i'.:.Iili'i'tsfecil_L ii%.i.»It:§. the Static».

(See: .S(t.t!€ (gf"Pzt1-ijct.t2 :S()£'2'lll?vIi.'Vltgtfkellcfet' Sing}:

am! 3z?t;';:«rlt[ii'Itctt=__ tS'1f.*:(:5::!§ 1'-';s',l:"vll.j_3t.(t.t_e:fl(if' PLtn_,iab ). Tltcit Tj1;_g_'()..l Q," {he ctpper,'lc1m' is _ titfjetjttétiie."K T 2 Qt: the tttheij'-hatid;the decisions sought to be relied upon by the e()tittlsel__f('i1';l the BBMP would not lend support to the l C{)I1'[tL71l:l()A'l"l pt1E.j'l'()l"t.h by the Counsel, whereas the very decision has H ;:ei+'et¢;~eLt' decisitins cited by the Counsel for the petitioner with gtpptovttl and has extracteci the views expressed therein. In arty-event, the facts of that case were that the appellant appeared in the exam.inati(.m c()r1ducte.d by the UPSC in the year 1996. it alieged that the appellant tbtmd to be in p0$seSsion of the pre- written answer sheets which were similar to the;'"anSwe__r5s;he=ets supplied by the Examination Board. He WttS"'i'€ti:lt)Vt§£i: fronriilthe hall and a statement was recorded, he lhad coiit'e_sset't to l have pre--written answer sheets with him. The rnzéittermwas tiien reported to the UPSC. pi'elii1J.i_na't*y ie-iJquii'y"w.as conducted and on being satisfied about the Secretary had lodged a c1'ifTli.nail;€_-ease several offences under the Charge--Sheet was filed in the £131. The appellant had raised a p1'€lilll11Ei12t1"yl (.i)i3l.~l_i':i':lt,A':--iTtlA'L--)lFll'Lita:l'1't;§il1(ii1"3g that the alleged offences had been'coinmitteri__at in the State of Madhya Pradesh and thtttii Cl3il,i'i'.';_tLit.i_1() atithoi'ity or k§£lFiSCllCEi0l'i to institute the ei'im.inal H p19(:eveed'irigs: '~ ' ' also contended that before initiating the proceedings the Delhi Special Police Estabiishrrtent Act, 1946. consent '' ~---of the State Government was required. No such consent having been given by the State,g<ieeedings initiated ztgainst the appellant were without jurisdiction. The Magistrate havi_ri'g"«reje_etedi the preliminary objection. a revision petition \_mt's»...;j:ret'erired u,nd'er section 397 of the Code of C1'imina'1_ P1':=_;icer§1ure,_S . High Court. The High petition, the appeiiant __vvas vA,.Vf:"I()u1"t. The Supreme Court heid thatitii consent by a State Government never be accorded except by Section 3 refers to Government to issue the sztrne the term "order" and enabies [he';tQ'€n~I.l-£1} Go.vei'iinieiit to extend powers and jurisdiction of , Sp_eeEa_i ?.oIi'ce_Establishment to other areas not covered by the ' ;'.3x('..'E._'SSéLl{''_1"_L*)l1ﬁ.VWhiCh speaks of consent of the State Government, for ithe"'.e>iercise of powers and jurisdiction neither refers to not'ii".ieatic)ri nor order. it mereiy requires the consent of the State Government. for the application ofthe Delhi Act and in the case on hand before the Supreme Court. the letter written by the Deputy Seueta-try to the State Govertirnent mentioned that the State 3 25 Government had no objection to the members of thei.l):e-1_hi.,_State Poiice Estabiishment exercising powers and JUi"lS(l'lCil()'ll"'t'léilt.hl.it-_lii'i".:

State and the Supreme Court heid th.?.1t'"it.(_;t)Ul:;lHlltlt saidi_tha't._¢the . 2 State Government had not given

6. A i As could be see.n':,,the. iiCt)t.1i't called upon to interpret the scope of the Delhi Special Policegi not specify that the consent t)fiitiie'v_vStatei Goveriiinentii should be given either by a n()tit'icat'ioni't)i' ai':.t_t_iid'e.;" "t«hei'ef'()i'e. the Deputy Secretary to the State' "Governmeint'i acting as a correspondent for the State Got-'er1'ii1:ietttﬁtitd indicating that it had no objection to the ii:?ne--mbei'siiii_"_o_f'the Delhi State Police Establishment exercising poweijs"andijurisdiction cannot be equated with the action being 2 tal<e--n by the State Government in (sailing upon the Lokayukta to investigate into the alleged actions of the petitioner in the instant case on hand. g 26 Article E66 of the Constitution of India read withiﬁule 18 and 19 of the Karnataka Government (Trans21etio.n~mj'Business) Rules l977 would indicate that an order 0tf..re._lfe.Vren'ee required under Section 7 (2A) of the :be i' made in the form and in terms Annexiure tp»,the peti.ti0n:* Rule 30 of the above Rules s()_ug-ht rte beiirelvived _tip0n by the counsel for BBMP is nottlepnzthlreftd. ctirife.nd'».r)tlterwise. The Rule requires the Secretary of A21 Depar_tnt.ent to su5mi_t a case for orders tr) the,Minis'ter;_in--eharge;~..And subject to his directions routine cases antteiises 01'.'_ ni;ir1{wri"i-rnprirtance «M such as cases covered by a Ruleypolicy io1*»,Dte'cedeii1t -- are disposed of by the Secretary. This i.iob_\/iit:I1s'l§t relates to disposal of business within the Departntent a2.rid--..eer*r'ai'ifr»l.y tides not enable the Secretary of the Department to make 31 'iieference on behalf of the State Government for purposes dr"iS.e;-tldn 7(2A) of the Act, by way of a demi--0fficia1 letter the Ffrirtcipztl Secretary of a Depmtrnent on the letterhead of the ofi'ic:e of the Secretary addressed to the Registrar office of the Lokayukta.

8

Therefore._ the petition is ailowed. Annexu'r:é's 5 quashed. While it wouid be open f'Q'1'"t"he' 'State Go§Vef.r1rhe'ht,if"£he» T. A' law so permits,t() initiate fresh action in 2iC--£;()rdah'c'¢ﬁ}\/vitf*1 V

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Karnataka High Court