(Prayer: These writ petitions are filed under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India, praying to quash the order dated 27.8.2011 vide Annexure-E, passed by the 1st Respondent referring the matter to Honourable Lokayukta to examine the alleged mis-utilisation of assets sanctioned by the Government under the 2 schemes i.e. (a) Self Employment Scheme and (b) Safai Karmachari Rehabilitation Programme sponsored by the Corporation and etc.)
1. Learned Government Pleader takes notice for the 1st respondent.
2. In these writ petitions, the petitioners are challenging the Government Order dated 27.08.2011 produced at Annexure-E whereby the allegations made against the petitioners herein and the role played by them in the alleged irregularity and illegality committed in the matter of disbursement of loan under the self employment scheme of Dr. Ambedkar Development Corporation are referred for an enquiry to the Lokayukta.
3. The State Government has exercised its powers under Section 7(2-A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short, ‘the Act’) while referring the matter for investigation to the Lokayuktha. Petitioners 1 to 5 herein are presently serving as Officers of the 2nd respondent-Corporation in different capacities. Petitioner No.6 was on deputation from the Education Department to the 2nd respondent-Corporation during the relevant period i.e. from September, 1997 to June, 2000. There were allegations of misuse of assets of the Corporation in respect of Self-employment Programme and Safayi Karmachari Rehabilitation Programme inasmuch as the loans that were required to be disbursed to the beneficiaries was not disbursed as per the Scheme to the eligible beneficiaries.
4. In view of the serious nature of the allegations, the State Government entrusted the matter for investigation to the C.O.D. Bangalore. The C.O.D. upon investigation and having considered the relevant files pertaining to 112 beneficiaries, has submitted a report that in the matter of disbursement of loan and release of autorickshaws in favour of eligible applicants in case of 70% of such transactions irregularities had been noticed, in that, 12 of them had submitted false Caste Certificate for availing the benefit, 9 of them had taken the benefit twice, whereas in respect of 56 beneficiaries without their knowledge, the autorickshaws meant to be given to them wee appropriated by the middlemen. In that regard, C.O.D. had suspected the involvement of the petitioners herein.
5. Taking serious note of the irregularities and illegality committed and the involvement of the petitioners, the State Government, in order to have thorough investigation of the matter, exercising the powers under Section 7(2-A) of the At, has referred the entire matter for investigation to the Lokayukta. It is this Government Order dated 27.08.2011 that is called in question by the petitioners in these writ petitions.
6. Sri Satish Doddamani, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the provisions contained under Sub-Clause 2(c) and (d) of Section 8 of the Act, the State Government could not have referred the matter of investigation by the Lokayukta after the expiry of six months from the date on which the action complained against the petitioners had become known to be complainant nor it had any right after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against the petitioners was alleged to have taken place to make such a reference. It is his submission that the incident has allegedly taken place in the year 2005 and the Government Order referring the matter to the Lokayukta has been passed on 27.08.2011 which is clearly after the expiry of five years from the date the incident had taken place and therefore, in terms of Section 8(2)(d) of the Act, the reference of the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta was illegal. He further contends that the report from the C.O.D. was sent on 20.02.2010, whereas the action to refer the matter has been taken on 27.08.2011 after the expiry of six months from the date the State Government became aware of the alleged irregularities and therefore, reference of the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta after the expiry of six months from the date the action complained became known to the State Government was bad in law as per Section 8(2)(c) of the Act.
7. Learned Government Pleader strongly refutes these contentions and submits that Section 8 of the Act has no application to the present case.
8. Upon hearing the learned counsel for the parties and on careful perusal of the pleadings and the entire material on record, it can be seen that Section 8 of the Act pertains to ‘matters that are not subject to investigation by the Lokayukta except as provided’. It is useful to extract the provisions contained under Section 8 of the Act, as considerable arguments are advanced on the basis of these provisions. Section 8 reads as follows:
“8. Matters not subject to investigation.- (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall not conduct any investigation under this Act in the case of a complaint involving a grievance in respect of any action.-
(a) if such action relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule; or
(b) if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any Tribunal, [Court Officer or other authority and has not availed of the same.]
(2) The Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta shall not investigate.-
(a) any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be;
(b) any action in respect of a matter which has been referred for inquiry, under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta, as the case may be;
(c) any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of a period of six months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant; or
(d) any complaint involving an allegation made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained against is alleged to have taken place:
Provided that he may entertain a complaint referred to in clauses (c) and (d) if the complainant satisfies that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in those clauses.”
9. It is necessary to point out that Section 8 relates to a case of complaint given to the Lokayukta or the Upa-lokayukta and the investigation to be conducted based on the same. Section 8 (2) enacts a bar for the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta to investigate the matter under certain circumstances. As the learned counsel for the petitioners has restricted his contentions only with reference to Sub-Clause (2)(c) and (d) of Section 8 of the Act, the examination of the legality or otherwise of the action in these writ petitions is required to be done with reference to these two clauses.
10. Sub-clause (2)(c) of Section 8 enacts a bar for investigation of any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of six months from the date on which the action complained becomes known to the complainant. In the instant case, there is no complaint based on which the Lokayukta has assumed powers to investigate the matter. Section 8 contemplates that where a complaint has been filed before the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta, in such a situation the requirement of law is that the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta will not investigate any complaint involving a grievance made after the expiry of six months from the date the action complained had become known to the complaint as per Sub-Clause (2)(c) of Section 8. Similarly, Sub-clause 2(d) of Section 8 enacts a bar for investigation by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta of any complaint involving allegations made after the expiry of five years from the date on which the action complained had allegedly have taken place. Indeed, the proviso to Section 8(2) further makes it clear that if the complainant were to satisfy the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta that he had sufficient cause for not making the complaint within the period specified in those clauses, then the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta could still entertain the complaint though it was filed after the expiry of six months from the date the allegation came to the knowledge of the complaint or after the expiry of five years from the date the incident took place.
11. By the impugned Government order, the State Government has referred the matter for investigation to the Lokayukta after being satisfied of the illegality committed in the transaction which was forthcoming from the report submitted by the C.O.D. The provision contained under Section 8 of the Act cannot be made applicable to a case where the State Government itself entrusts the matter to the Lokayukta for investigation. Provisions of Section 8 are applicable only where based on a complaint made by an aggrieved person investigation is sought to be initiated by the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta. In fact, this becomes amply clear by a perusal of Section 9 of the Act which deals with the provisions relating to complaints and investigation to be made by Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta.
12. Provisions contained under Section 9(2) states that 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. If the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta proposes after making such preliminary enquiry as he deems fit to conduct any investigation, then the procedure that is required to be followed by him is enumerated in Sub-clause (3) of Section 9. Sub-clause (5) of Section 9 cloths the Lokayukta or Upa-lokayukta with discretion to refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint, if in his opinion the complaint itself was frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith or there were no sufficient grounds for investigation or that other remedies were available to the complainant which the complainant ought to have availed appropriately.
13. It is thus clear that the scope of Sections 8 and 9 of the Act is totally different and reference of the matter for investigation by the State Government invoking the provisions of Section 7(2-A) of the Act is entirely different. Therefore, the contentions urged by the learned counsel for the petitioners trying to read into the provisions contained under Section 7(2-A) the provisions of Section 8(2)(c) and (d) of the Act regarding bar of limitation are misconceived and untenable.
14. Therefore, these writ petitions are devoid of merits. There is no illegality in the impugned Government Order. Hence, these writ petitions are dismissed.
Learned Government Pleader is permitted to file memo of appearance for the 1st respondent within three weeks from today.