Managing Director, Apsrtc, Mushirabad, Hyderabad Vs. Institution of A.P. Lokayukta and Upa-lokayukta, Hyderabad and Another - Court Judgment

Excerpt:
.....(2) of andhra pradesh lokayukta and upa-lokayukta act, 1983, section 2 (c) of andhra pradesh state road transport corporation (conduct of meetings) regulations, 1959 and section 3 of road transport corporations act, 1950 - complaint filed by respondent no. 2 before lokayukta against petitioner-andhra pradesh state road transport corporation (apsrtc) - accordingly notice given to petitioner-apsrtc by lokayukta - challenged - apsrtc established under central act - according to section 2 (k) (v) (2) lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against any corporation established by or under a state act and owned or controlled by government - held, lokayukta has no jurisdiction over apsrtc and thereby notice issued by it is quashed. - - 1. heard the learned counsel for the..........ground that lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the andhra pradesh state road transport corporation which is a corporation created under the central act. under section 2(c) of the andhra pradesh state road transport corporation (conduct of meetings) regulations, 1959, corporation means the a.p. state road transport corporation established under section 3 of the road transport corporations act, 1950. section 3 of the road transport corporations act, 1950 says that the state government may, by notification in the official gazette, establish road transport corporation for the whole or any part of the state under such name as may be specified in the notification. in terms of section 2(k)(v)(2) of the andhra pradesh lokayukta and upa-lokayukta act, 1983 (for short.....

Judgment:
ORDER

Bilal Nazki, J.

1. Heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner as well as the learned Standing Counsel for Lokayukta. Respondent No.2 has not chosen to appear.

2. In a complaint filed by the respondent No.2 before the Lokayukta a notice has been given to the petitioner asking him to appear before the Lokayukta. The grievance of the respondent No.2 was that he had retired from service on medical ground and his request for appointmentof his daughter on compassionate ground was rejected by the petitioner. This writ petition has been filed on sole ground that Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation which is a Corporation created under the Central Act. Under Section 2(c) of the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (Conduct of Meetings) Regulations, 1959, Corporation means the A.P. State Road Transport Corporation established under Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950. Section 3 of the Road Transport Corporations Act, 1950 says that the State Government may, by notification in the official gazette, establish Road Transport Corporation for the whole or any part of the State under such name as may be specified in the notification. In terms of Section 2(k)(v)(2) of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short 'the Act') the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain complaints against any Corporation (not being a local authority) established by or under a State Act and owned or controlled by the Government. Under Section 2 (e) of the Act the Government is defined as the State Government. Admittedly the Andhra Pradesh Road Transport Corporation had been established by a Central Act. Therefore, manifestly the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction over the Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. For this reason alone, we allow the writ petition and quash the impugned notice.