Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

8. According to Sri.Rafiq, Ext.P1 complaint is not maintainable before the Lok Ayukta and the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to pass Ext.P3 report. It is contended that the action of the petitioners while discharging the functions under the KGST Act and the Revenue Recovery Act could not have been taken as 'maladministration' under Section 2(k) of the Lok Ayukta Act as 'maladministration' can apply only to administrative functions and not in respect of judicial or quasi judicial functions. It is contended that the Lok WP(C)8925/2021 :9:

13. Section 2(h) of the Lok Ayukta Act defines 'grievance' to mean a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of maladministration.

14. Section 2(k) of the Lok Ayukta Act defines 'maladministration' as follows:-

WP(C)8925/2021 :14:

"Section 2(k). Maladministration means action taken or purporting to have been taken in the exercise of administrative functions in any case where,-

(i)such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory; or
(ii)there has been willful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action involves undue delay;"
Going by the definition of 'maladministration', only unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminating action taken or purporting to have been taken in exercise of administrative functions would amount to maladministration. The power exercised by the Sales Tax Officer in rejecting the application of the complainants opting for the Amnesty Scheme-2020 is a quasi judicial function and a hierarchy of remedies is provided against the said order under Chapter-VII of the KGST Act apart from the remedy available before this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution in appropriate cases. If the complainants are WP(C)8925/2021 :15:
purportedly conferred by a statute cannot be classified as maladministration within the meaning of Lok Ayukta Act. If orders passed by quasi-judicial functionaries exercising powers under a statute are for any reason untenable in law, resort must be had to the remedies under the statute and the complainants cannot bypass the procedure and approach the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta is a creation of the statute and has no inherent jurisdiction. It cannot assume any jurisdiction otherwise confirmed by the Lok Ayukta Act. This Court, in John Joseph (supra), observed that, if the authority does not have the requisite jurisdiction to adjudicate the dispute brought before it, permitting such an examination would only create chaos in the administration. Ext. P1 complaint before the Lok Ayukta does not reveal any allegation or grievance in consequence of maladministration. Therefore, Ext. P1 complaint, in our view, is not maintainable before the Lok Ayukta and the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to decide the correctness of the WP(C)8925/2021 :17: