Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

22.11.2010 W.P.(C) Nos. 1136, 3342 and 3345 of 2010 & CM Nos. 4290, 6722, 6725, 13760 & 13761 of 2010.

1. These three petitions involve the interpretation of Sections 2(m) (iv) and 17 of the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 („DLAU Act‟). Background

2. The background to these petitions is that Shri Ravinder Balwani (the Respondent in W.P.(C) No. 1136 of 2010) filed a complaint before the Lokayukta complaining of Shri R.K. Saxena (the Petitioner in W.P.(C) No. 1136 of 2010) of misusing his official position as Director (Administrative) as well as Director (HR) of Delhi Transco Ltd. („DTL‟) for personal benefit. Balwani‟s specific case was that Saxena being the Director of DTL, a company owned by the Government of National Capital Territory of Delhi („GNCTD‟) was a „public functionary‟ within the meaning of Section 2(m)

10. Keeping the above background in view, the provisions of the DLAU Act may be examined in some detail. The definition of „public functionary‟ under Section 2(m) reads as under:

"2. Definitions: - In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires -

(m) "Public functionary" means a person who is or has been at any time-

(i) the Chief Minister or a Minister;

(ii) a Member of Legislative Assembly;

(iii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Legislative Assembly;

(4) a Corporation engaged in connection with the affairs, and under the control, of the Government;

(5) any Commission or body set up by the Government which is owned and controlled by it;

(v) a Member of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi as defined in clause 2(27) of the Municipal Corporation Act, 1957 (as amended in 1993)"

11. There can be no doubt that the range of offices covered by the definition of „public functionary‟ under Section 2(m) is indeed wide. As far as the companies are concerned, the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director or a Member of the Board of Directors are the persons falling within the ambit of „public functionary‟. If one were to go only by Section 2(m) DLAU Act, there would be no doubt whatsoever that the three writ Petitioners, in their capacity as Chairman and Managing Director of companies owned by the GNCTD would be covered within the definition of „public functionary‟. However, this is not the only provision that is relevant. Section 17 of the DLAU Act reads as under:

"(a) They should be demonstrably independent and impartial.

(b) ...

(c) ...

(d) Their status should compare with the highest judicial functionaries in the country.

(e) ..."

That „impartiality‟ figures high in the list of desired qualities of a Lokayukta is an indication of the value attached to this feature which perhaps is essential of any fair and independent decision-making body.

29. The Preamble and other provisions of the DLAU Act reflect the legislative intent that the office of Lokayukta should be occupied by a person whose weight of judicial experience would by itself lend credibility to the office and there could be no doubt about the impartiality of the person occupying that office. Since this office was being entrusted with powers to inquire into complaints of corruption against high „public functionaries‟ including the Chief Minister, the Ministers and the MLAs, apart for the Chairman, Vice-Chairman and Managing Director of state owned corporations, it was to be handled with independence, sensitivity, competence and impartiality. This was expected to pervade all the functions discharged by the Lokayukta not restricted to the actual decision-making in a lis.