Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

(a) xxxx xxx
(b) "allegation" in relation to a public functionary in capacity as such-
(i) has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by the public functionaries or the class to which he belongs.
(ii) has abused or misused his position to obtain any gain or favor to him self or to any gain of favor to himself or to any other person or to cause loss or undue barn or hardship to any other person:
(iii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public functionary be improper or corrupt motives or personal interest:
3. Allegation in relation to the said public functionary in capacity is the one specified in Section-2(b) of the Act.

15. In the instant case L-2 license was granted by the Commissioner of Excise i.e. Respondent No. 3 to Delhi State Civil Supplies Corporation Ltd i.e. Respondent No. 4. For this purpose, in order to run/operate the vend, Respondent no. 4 had taken the premises from the petitioner on rent. The Commissioner Excise while granting this license was discharging his statutory functions. He is not a `public functionary' defined under Section-2(m) and, therefore, would not be under the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Further, from he facts narrated above, it is clear that the Lokayukta took suo moto notice of the opening of the liquor vend in Hans Bhavan, ITO as he wanted to know whether the Department wants to attract the students of the Institute of Chartered Accountant or employees at the Police Headquarters, the Sales Tax and the Income-tax Office which lie in the vicinity in the vend. It is clear that he nurtured a feeling or a prima facie opinion that such liquor vend should not be at such a place which was in the vicinity of aforesaid institutions. The inquiry conducted by him thereafter clearly reveals that exercise undertaken by the Lokayukta was that opening of such a vend in the vicinity of these offices was contrary to Rule-33(1A) and Rule 33(8) etc. as per which such vend could not have been located within 75 meters from such institutions. Even if it is presumed that there was violation of such provisions, it could not be said that such ground constituted "allegation" within the meaning of Section-2(b). Thus neither the purported allegations were such which permitted the Lokayukta to have inquiry into the matters nor the act of Commissioner Excise in granting license could be inquired into by the Lokayukta under this Act. It is clear that the Lokayukta was conscious of his limitations insofar as his jurisdiction over the Excise Commissioner, is concerned. In order to overcome this limitation, he issued notice to the then Finance Minister in the Government of NCT of Delhi which is public functionary and by adopting this methodology he assumed jurisdiction over the matter. Such a course of action on the part of the Lokayukta was clearly impermissible.