Document Fragment View

Matching Fragments

3.4 As far as challenge to the bailable warrant is  concerned,   even   according   to   the   learned  advocate for the petitioner, the same does not  survive   any   more   as   the   petitioner   has  thereafter appeared before the Lokayukta. 

4. Mr.   Jal   S.   Unwala,   learned   advocate   for   the  petitioner   has   taken   this   Court   through   the  factual matrix as well as the grounds raised in  the   petition.   The   learned   advocate   for   the  petitioner has referred to Sections 2(1), 2(2),  2(7), 7, 8, 9(2), 11(2), 11(5) and 11(6) of the  Lokayukta Act and Sections 10, 11, 19, 20(xxvi)  and 20(5) of the Hemchandracharya North Gujarat  HC-NIC Page 7 of 43 Created On Fri Feb 05 02:53:52 IST 2016 C/SCA/18865/2015 JUDGMENT University   Act,   1986   (hereinafter   referred   to  as "the 1986 Act") and has contended as under:­  [a] It   was   contended   that   Section   2(7)(d)  specifically includes only the Vice Chancellor  as a public functionary and not the University.  It   was   contended   that   the   said   provision  incorporates the individual decision and not a  collective   decision   of   the   Council.   It   was  further   contended   that   the   intention   of   the  legislature was not to bring within its purview  the decision taken by the Executive Council of  the   University   and   therefore,   the   legislature  has   deliberately   excluded   the   University   or  Council and therefore, any collective decision  where   the   petitioner   is   party   as   Ex­Officio  Chairman or a Vice Chancellor cannot be called  into   question   as   an   action   is   defined   under  Section   2(1)   of   the   Lokayukta   Act   and   in   her  individual capacity as Vice Chancellor. [b] It was contended that as provided under Section  2(1) of the Lokayukta Act, what is provided is  HC-NIC Page 8 of 43 Created On Fri Feb 05 02:53:52 IST 2016 C/SCA/18865/2015 JUDGMENT an   action   by   the   person   in   his   or   her  individual capacity as Vice Chancellor and not  an   action   taken   by   her   as   Chairman   of   the  Executive Council. 

2(2) "allegation" in relation to a  public   functionary   and   with   reference  to any action taken by him, means any  affirmation   that   such   public  functionary   in   his   capacity   as   a  public functionary­­

(a) is   guilty   of   corruption,   or  lack of integrity; or 

(b) was actuated in the discharge  of   his   functions   by   personal  interest   or   improper   or   corrupt  motives; or 

(4) An   investigation   under   this  section of an action taken by or with  the general or specific approval of a  public   functionary   shall   not   be  affected   merely   on   the   ground   that  subsequent  to  such action  such public  functionary   ceased   to   hold   the  capacity in which the action was taken  by him or with his approval or ceased  to be such public functionary.

9. Whether   the   respondent   acted   as  Public   Functionary   while   taking  actions as aforesaid?

10. Whether the acts/omissions on the  part   of   the   respondent   amount   to  "action" within the meaning of section  2(1) and 2(2) of the Gujarat Lokayukta  Act, 1986."

16. Therefore, it clearly bornes out that Lokayukta  has also formulated points to the effect which  concerns   the   provisions   of   the   Lokayukta   Act  which   is   relied   upon   by   the   learned   advocate  HC-NIC Page 38 of 43 Created On Fri Feb 05 02:53:52 IST 2016 C/SCA/18865/2015 JUDGMENT for the petitioner, more particularly, Sections  2(1),   2(2)   and   2(7)(d).   Ms.   Shah   has   rightly  contended   that   the   provisions   of   Section   11  which   provides   for   the   manner   of   evidence   as  circumscribed   for   the   purposes   which   are  mentioned   in   Sections   11(2),   11(5)   and   11(6).  In opinion of this Court, the Lokayukta is free  to follow its own procedure which are in fact  provided under the  provisions of the Lokayukta  Act and the Rules and Code of Civil Procedure,  1908 as a whole would not apply  stricto senso  to   the   proceedings   before   the   Lokayukta   under  the   provisions   of   the   Lokayukta   Act.   The  legislature   in   its   wisdom   has   provided   for  certain  powers which  are  provided in  the  Code  of   Civil   Procedure,   1908   and   the   same   is   not  illustrative, but definite. Over and above the  powers   which   are   vested   in   Lokayukta   under  Section 11 of the Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta  is free to adopt his own procedure. Section 10  of the Lokayukta Act also makes it clear as to  what procedure the Lokayukta has to follow when  HC-NIC Page 39 of 43 Created On Fri Feb 05 02:53:52 IST 2016 C/SCA/18865/2015 JUDGMENT the   Lokayukta   decides   to   conduct   and  investigate under the Lokayukta Act. On reading  the   complaint   which   is   forming   part   of   the  record   of   the   petition,   as   the   allegations  leveled   against   the   petitioner   also   relate   to  her   action   as   Ex­Officio   Chairman   in   her  capacity as Vice Chancellor, in the prima­facie  opinion of this Court, it cannot be said  that  the   complaint   is   not   against   the   public  functionary, but against the University and the  Executive Council of the University. Suffice it  to   say   that   in   the   complaint   itself,   the  petitioner   is   named.   Therefore,   it   cannot   be  said   that   while   acting   as   Chairman   of   the  Executive Council, the petitioner ceases to be  the   Vice   Chancellor   of   the   University.   As  observed   hereinabove,   the   Lokayukta   has  formulated points for determination which also  includes   the   points   which   are   raised   in   the  preliminary   application   which   was   filed   and  which   has   been   rejected.   Considering   the  provisions   of   the   Lokayukta   Act   and   the  HC-NIC Page 40 of 43 Created On Fri Feb 05 02:53:52 IST 2016 C/SCA/18865/2015 JUDGMENT purpose,   objects   and   reasons   of   the   Lokayukta  Act, enough safeguard is provided and it cannot  be said that the impugned order, rejecting the  application   filed   by   the   petitioner   to   decide  the   question   of   jurisdiction   and   as   a  preliminary   issue,   is   erroneous.   Even   at   the  cost   of   repetition,   it   deserves   to   be   noted  that   the   points   of  determination   are   so  elaborate   and   wide   enough   that   the  investigation   by   the   Lokayukta   would   not  prejudice   the   petitioner   in   any   manner.  Considering the provisions of Section 16 of the  Lokayukta Act and the Rules, this Court is of  the   opinion   that   this   is   not   a   fit   case,  wherein   respondent   No.1   is   required   to   be  directed   to   give   certified   copy   of   the   order  dated 30.9.2015. In facts and circumstances of  the   case,   this   Court   is   not   called   upon   to  embark   upon   any   inquiry   into   validity   of   the  order passed by the Tribunal and therefore, the  pendency of two Writ Petitions challenging the  order   of   the   Tribunal   would   not   be   affected.