ORDER
Ashok Bhan, J.
1. This petition has been filed as public interest litigation inter alia seeking a writ of mandamus directing the respondents, in particular respondent 2 (The Registrar, Karnataka Lokayukta, Bangalore) to prosecute the public servants who have not submitted their statement of assets and liabilities under Section 22 of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as the Act'). Writ petition has been filed with the allegation that inspite of coming into force of the Act 11 years back, the public servants other than the Government servants including past and present Chief Minister, Ministers and Members of the State Legislative Assembly and Council, have not submitted their statement of assets and liabilities.
2. Notice regarding rule was issued and the respondents were directed to file their statement of objections. Registrar of the Karnataka Lokayukta-respondent 2 was directed to file affidavit stating therein as to how many public servants referred to under Section 22 have/have not filed their statement of assets and liabilities as mandated by Section 22. Respondent 2 filed his affidavit submitting that during the year 1997, 160 MLAs (including 25 Ministers) and 30 MLCs, have not filed their statement of assets and liabilities. It is further submitted that for the year 1996, 154 MLAs (including 34 Ministers) and 10 MLCs (including one Minister) have not submitted their statement of assets and liabilities. The names of the persons who did not submit their statement of assets and liabilities were published in three newspapers as required under Section 2(2) of the Act. The stand taken by respondent 2 is that action under Section 22 having been completed no further action can betaken against the defaulting public servants in the absence of a complaint under Section 9 of the Act.
3. This Court on 15th April, 1998, initiated action against the defaulting Ministers and Legislators who did not file their statement of assets and liabilities. But before initiating any action respondent 2 was directed to issue notice to such defaulting Ministers and Legislators of initiating action against them by registering a case against them. Before doing so an opportunity of filing statement of assets and liabilities was directed to be given. For this two months period was granted from the date of service of notice on them. In case they still did not file the statement of assets and liabilities they were directed to be proceeded with under the Act and action initiated in accordance with law. Respondent 2 was directed to file further affidavit after two weeks indicating therein the names of persons who have submitted/have failed to submit their statement of assets and liabilities in pursuance of the direction issued. Affidavit has been filed along with the names of public servants who have failed to submit their statement of assets and liabilities whose names have been published in the newspaper.
4. Section 2(12) defines public servant to be:
' 'Public servant' means a person who is or was at any time.-
(a) the Chief Minister;
(b) a Minister;
(c) a member of the State Legislature;
(d) a Government servant;
(e) the Chairman and the Vice-Chairman (by whatever name called) or a member of a local authority in the State of Karnataka or a statutory body or corporation established by or under any law of the State Legislature, including a co-operative society, or a Government Company within the meaning of Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956 and such other corporations or boards as the State Government may, having regard to its financial interest in such corporations or boards, by notification, from time to time, specify;
(f) member of a committee or Board, statutory or non-statutory, constituted by the Government;
(g) a person in the service of pay of.-
(i) a local authority in the State of Karnataka;
(ii) a statutory body or a corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State or Central Act, owned or controlled by the State Government and any other board or corporation as the State Government, having regard to its financial interest therein by notification, from time to time specify;
(iii) a company registered under the Companies Act, 1956, in which not less than fifty one per cent of the paid up share capitalis held by the State Government, or and company which is a subsidiary of such company;
(iv) a society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Societies Registration Act, 1960, which is subject to the control of the State Government and which is notified in this behalf in the Official Gazette;
(v) a co-operative society;
(vi) a university;
Explanation.--In this clause, 'co-operative society' means a co-operative society registered or deemed to have been registered under the Karnataka Co-operative Societies Act, 1959, and 'university' means a university established or deemed to be established by or under any law of the State Legislature'.
Section 22 requires every public servant other than the Government servant to submit to the Lokayukta in the prescribed form a statement of assets and liabilities and (those of the) members of bis family, within three months after the commencement of the Act and thereafter before the 30th of June every year. If no such statement is received by the Lokayukta from any such public servant within the time specified in sub-section (1), then the Lokayukta can report to this effect to the Competent Authority and send a copy of the report to the public servant concerned. If within two months of such report, the public servant concerned does not submit such statement, the Lokayukta shall publish or cause to be published the names of such public servants in three newspapers having wide publication in the State.
5. Section 9 relates to the filing of complaints and the manner in which those complaints have to be dealt with by the Lokayukta. The same reads as under:
'Provisions relating to complaints and investigations.--(1)Subject to the provisions of this Act, any person may make a complaint under this Act to the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta.
(2) Every complaint shall be made in the form of a statement supported by an affidavit and in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed.
(3) Where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta proposes, after making such preliminary inquiry as he deemed fit, to conduct any investigation under this Act, he.-
(a) shall forward a copy of the complaint to the public servant and the Competent Authority concerned;
(b) shall afford to such public servant an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint;
(c) may make such order as to the safe custody of documents relevant to the investigation, as he deems fit.
(4) Save as aforesaid, the procedure for conducting any such investigation shall be such, and may be held either in public or incamera, as the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta, as the case may be, considers appropriate in the circumstances of the case.
(5) The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta may, in his discretion, refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint involving a grievance or an allegation, if in his opinion.-
(a) the complaint is frivolous, or vexatious or is not made in good faith;
(b) there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or, as the case may be, for continuing the investigation; or
(c) other remedies are available to the complainant and in the circumstances of the case it would be more proper for the complainant to avail of such remedies.
(6) In any case where the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta decides not to entertain a complaint or to discontinue any investigation in respect of a complaint he shall record his reasons therefor and communicate the same to the complainant and the public servant concerned.
(7) The conduct of an investigation (under this Act against a public servant) in respect of any action shall not affect such action, or any power or duty of (any other public servant) to take further action with respect to any matter subject to the investigation'.
Section 2(2) defines allegations which can be made in a complaint.
6. The plea taken by the Counsel for respondent 2 is that no complaint under Section 9 has been filed and in the absence of the same it is not possible for respondent 2 to take any further action. It is also submitted that the action under Section 22 having been completed, no further action was required to be taken. We do not agree with the stand taken by respondent 2.
7. Karnataka Lokayukta Act was introduced to ascertain the extent of property owned and possessed by a public servant and every public servant was required to submit statement of assets and liabilities each year. The Act contemplated the initiation of action against the person guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. As per Section 2(2)(d), the failure on the part of the public servant to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs, amounts to an allegation. Admittedly, Section 22 requires a public servant to submit statement of assets and liabilities before 30th June every year. Prima facie failure on the part of the public servant to file the statement of assets and liabilities, amounts to failure to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which are required to be followed by the said public servant.
8. The other point argued by the Counsel for respondent 2 is that in the absence of complaint under Section 9 of the Act, Lokayukta is not conferred with the jurisdiction to take action or investigate. The names of the defaulting public servants is already known. A list of the saidpublic servants has been filed and the copy of the same has been supplied to the petitioner in Court. We direct respondent 2 to treat the writ petition filed before us as a complaint under Section 9 of the Act. Petitioner is directed to file 'true copy' of the writ petition along with an affidavit in support thereof within four weeks from today. He need not file any affidavits regarding the failure of the individual defaulting public servant to file the statement of assets and liabilities, because that fact has already been investigated by respondent 2. Lokayukta would initiate action under Section 9 treating the writ petition to be a complaint and proceed in accordance with law and the procedure provided under Section 9 and subsequent enabling Sections 10, 11, 12 and 13.
Copy of this order be given to the petitioner and the Counsel for the respondents with free of costs.