Page 1

1 NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CIVIL APPEAL NO.3581 OF 2015

[Arising out of Special Leave Petition  (Civil) No.13697 of 2012]

RANG NATH MISHRA     ...APPELLANT VERSUS

STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH  & ORS.            ...RESPONDENTS

JUDGMENT

RANJAN GOGOI, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The challenge in this appeal is to  the order dated 11th November, 2011 passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Judicature  at  Allahabad  in  Writ-C  No.62471  of  2011  by  which  the  writ  petition  filed  by  the  appellant has been dismissed.

Page 2

2 3. The  challenge  in  the  writ  petition,  inter  alia,  was  against  the  report  dated  4th October,  2011  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  containing  the  following  recommendations:

“(1) The Charged Public Servant,  Minister  of  Secondary  Education, Shri Ranga Nath  Mishra,  as  the  sources  of  income  of  the  properties  earned  by  him  from  2007  onwards  are  not  known,  therefore,  for  prosecution  under  section  13(1)(e)  of  the  Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988,  criminal  investigation  be  got done by an independent  agency  like  C.B.C.I.D.  or  Uttar  Pradesh  Vigilance  Commission,  and  his  prosecution  be  considered  to be initiated.

(2) On the basis of the illegal  possession  of  the  Gram  Sabha  land  of  Gat  No.666  Mi/O.106  Hect.  in  Village  Aurai,  Bhadohi,   District  Sant  Ravi  Das  Nagar,  the  proceedings  be  initiated  against the charged Public  Servant  Shri  Ranga  Nath  Mishra,  under  Section  122  of  the  Abolition  of  Zamindari  Act,  and  the  concerned  Dy.  District  Collector  should  register

Page 3

3 the case and the aforesaid  land of the Gram Sabha be  ordered to be released from  his possession.

(3) During  the  aforesaid  criminal  proceedings  and  release  of  the  land  from  his possession, for taking  independent  action  as  per  the Investigation Unit and  as  per  the  rules  of  the  competent  authority,  the  Charged  Public  Servant,  Minister  of  Secondary  Education, be removed from  the  portfolio  of  the  Minister  so  that  the  aforesaid legal proceedings  could  be  carried  out  independently.

(4) The  Criminal  Investigation  be  done  through  such  an  agency  which  can  also  investigate  into  the  investments  of  such  properties  made  in  the  State  and  outside  the  State.

(5) The  compliance  report  in  respect  of  the  aforesaid  recommendations  be  made  available within a month.”

4. As  the  aforesaid  recommendations  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  have  been  implemented and necessary action in terms

Page 4

4 thereof has been taken, the relief prayed  for in this appeal has been truncated to a  declaration  that  the  aforesaid  report  dated 4th October, 2011 of the Lokayukta,  U.P.  is  contrary  to  the  mandatory  procedure  prescribed  under  the  U.P.  Lokayukta & Up-Lokayuktas Act, 1975 (for  the  sake  of  convenience  hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Act”)  and  that  the  said  report  suffers  from  vice  of  non- application of mind.

5. The brief facts antecedent to the  report  dated  4th October,  2011  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  may  now  be  conveniently  taken note of at the outset.

It  appears  that  the  respondent  No.4  in  the  present  appeal,  Swami  Nath  Misra, had submitted an undated complaint  to the Hon'ble President of India, Prime  Minister  of  India,  Governor  of  U.P.,  Lucknow  and  Chairman,  Central  Board  of  Direct Taxes, Income Tax Department, New

Page 5

5 Delhi  demanding  an  enquiry  in  to  the  alleged acquisition of huge assets by the  appellant  who  was  then  serving  as  a  Cabinet  Minister  in  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.   The  said  complaint  was  reiterated by a reminder dated 27th August,  2010 which was,  inter alia, addressed to  the Lokayukta, U.P.  A communication dated  18th October,  2010  was  addressed  to  the  appellant  by  the  Secretary  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  intimating  him  that  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  has  decided  to  hold  a  preliminary enquiry into the complaint, a  copy  of  which  was  forwarded  to  the  appellant.   The  said  letter  dated  18th  

October,  2010  was  followed  by  another  letter  dated  18th November,  2010.  It  appears  that  the  2nd communication  (reminder) dated 27th August, 2010 sent by  the  complainant,  inter  alia,  to  the  Lokayukta, U.P. was not accompanied by an  affidavit  of  the  complainant  which  apparently  was  filed  later  i.e.  on  22nd

Page 6

6 December, 2010. This was done apparently  when  the  appellant  had  demanded  that  a  copy of such affidavit be made available  to  him.  Thereafter,  a  letter  dated  14th  

February, 2011 was sent by the office of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  to  the  appellant  intimating  him  that  the  complaint  filed  against  the  appellant  has  been  accepted  for investigation. The appellant raised an  objection  dated  10th April,  2011  with  regard  to  the  maintainability  of  the  complaint  on  the  ground  of  its  improper  presentation and also on the ground that  the  complaint  was  not  supported  by  an  affidavit of the complainant, as required.  No specific order was passed on the said  objection  raised  by  the  appellant.  Instead, correspondences were exchanged by  and between the office of the Lokayukta,  U.P.  and  the  appellant  seeking  and  submitting  the  replies  of  the  appellant  and the documents in support of the stand  taken  by  the  appellant  in  the  said

Page 7

7 replies.  Eventually, the report dated 4th  

October, 2011 was submitted, the contents  of which have already been noted. It is  the  legality  and  the  legitimacy  of  the  said  report  rendered  in  the  aforesaid  circumstances  that  was  challenged  before  the High Court resulting in the decision  dated 11th November, 2011 which has been  impugned in the present appeal before us.

6. The  facts  and  events  that  have  occurred  after  submission  of  the  report  dated 4th October, 2011 of the Lokayukta,  U.P. may now be taken note of.

On the basis of the said report of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  the  then  Chief  Minister of the State of Uttar Pradesh had  dropped the appellant from the Council of  Ministers  on  the  very  next  day  i.e.  5th  

October,  2011.   Thereafter,  an  Open  Vigilance  Enquiry  against  the  appellant  was ordered and on the basis of the report  of the said enquiry a decision was taken

Page 8

8 that a criminal case under the Prevention  of  Corruption  Act,  1988  be  instituted  against  the  appellant  by  the  Vigilance  Department of the State. Accordingly,  a  FIR was filed against the appellant which  was  duly  investigated  and  charge-sheet  dated  30th July,  2013  was  filed  in  the  court  of  competent  jurisdiction.  Cognizance  of  the  offences  alleged  was  taken and subsequently on 19th August, 2013  charges  have  been  framed  against  the  appellant  in  the  Court  of  the  learned  Special  Judge  (Prevention  of  Corruption  Act), Varanasi under Sections 13(1)(e) and  13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,  1988.  The appellant is presently facing  trial in the said case.

7. Insofar as the recommendations of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  with  regard  to  the  Gram  Sabha  land  allegedly  in  the  possession of the appellant is concerned,  the  enquiries  held  had  exonerated  the

Page 9

9 appellant.

8. We have heard Dr. Rajeev Dhawan,  learned Senior Counsel appearing for the  appellant and Mr. Ravi Prakash Mehrotra,  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh.  We  have  also  considered  the  written  arguments  submitted  for  and  on  behalf of the parties.

9. The  challenge  made  by  the  appellant  primarily  revolves  around  the  maintainability of the complaint filed by  the  4th respondent  and  the  legality  and  legitimacy of the procedure adopted by the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  in  making  the  recommendations  set  out  in  the  report  dated 4th October, 2011.

10. To  appreciate  the  arguments  advanced by the rival parties it will be  necessary  to  take  note  of  the  relevant  provisions of the Act which are extracted  below:

Page 10

10

“7.  Matters  which  may  be  investigated by Lokayukta or Up- Lokayukta.-  (1)  Subject  to  the  provisions of this Act and on a  complaint involving a grievance  or an allegation being made in  that  behalf  the  Lokayukta  may  investigate any action which is  taken by, or with the general or  specific approval of - (i) a Minister or a Secretary;  and (ii) any public servant referred  to  in  sub-clause  (ii)  or  sub- clause  (iv)  of  clause  (j)  of  section 2; or (iii)  any  other  public  servant  being  a  public  servant  of  a  class  or  sub-class  of  public  servants  notified  by  the  State  Government in consultation with  the Lokayukta, in this behalf.

(2)Subject to the provisions of  this  Act  and  on  a  complaint  involving  a  grievance  or  an  allegation  being  made  in  that  behalf,  an  Up-Lokayukta  may  investigate any action which is  taken by or with the general or  specific approval of any public  servant  not  being  a  Minister,  Secretary  or  other  public  servant  referred  to  in  sub- section (1).

(3)  Notwithstanding  anything  contained  in  sub-section  (2),  the  Lokayukta  may,  for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing,

Page 11

11 investigate any action which may  be  investigated  by  an  Up- Lokayukta  under  that  sub- section.

(4)  Where  two  or  more  Up- Lokayuktas  are  appointed  under  this Act, the Lokayukta may, by  general or special order, assign  to each of them, matters which  may  be  investigated  by  them  under this Act:

Provided  that  no  investigation  made  by  an  Up-Lokayukta  under  this Act, and no action taken or  thing done by him in respect of  such investigation shall be open  to question on the ground only  that such investigation related  to  a  matter  which  is  not  assigned to him by such order.

8.  Matters  not  subject  to  investigation.-  (1)  Except  as  hereinafter  provided,  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  shall  not  conduct  any  investigation under this Act-

(a) except on a complaint made  under  and  in  accordance  with  section 9; or  

(b) in the case of a complaint  involving a grievance in respect  of any action,-  (i)  if  such  action  relates  to  any  matter  specified  in  the  Third Schedule; or

Page 12

12 (ii) if the complainant has or  had  any  remedy  by  way  of  proceeding  before  any  Tribunal  or Court of law:

Provided  that  nothing  in  sub- clause  (ii)  shall  prevent  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  from conducting an investigation  if  he  is  satisfied  that  such  person could not or cannot, for  sufficient cause, have recourse  to a remedy referred to in that  sub-clause.

(2)  The  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta shall not investigate  any action,- (a) in respect of which a formal  and  public  inquiry  has  been  ordered  under  the  Public  Servants  (Inquiries)  Act,  1850  (Central Act 37 of 1850), by the  Government  of  India  or  by  the  State  Government;  or   

(b) in respect of a matter which  has  been  referred  for  inquiry  under the Commissions of Inquiry  Act,  1952  (Central  Act  60  of  1952),  by  the  Government  of  India  or  by  the  State  Government.

(3)  The  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta shall not investigate  any complaint which is excluded  from his jurisdiction by virtue  of  a  notification  issued  under  section 19.

Page 13

13

(4)  The  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta  shall  not  investigate,-

(a)  any  complaint  involving  a  grievance,  if  the  complaint  is  made after the expiry of twelve  months  from  the  date  on  which  the  action  complained  against  becomes  known  to  the  complainant;

(b)  any  complaint  involving  an  allegation, if the complaint is  made  after  the  expiry  of  five  years from the date on which the  action  complained  against  is  alleged to have taken place:  

Provided  that  the  Lokayukta  or  an Up-Lokayukta may entertain a  complaint referred to in clause  (a),  if  the  complainant  satisfies  him  that  he  had  sufficient cause for not making  the complaint within the period  specified in that clause.

(5) In the case of any complaint  involving  a  grievance,  nothing  in this Act shall be construed  as  empowering  the  Lokayukta  or  an Up-Lokayukta to question any  administrative  action  involving  the  exercise  of  a  discretion  except  where  he  is  satisfied  that  the  elements  involved  in  the  exercise  of  the  discretion  are  absent  to  such  an  extent  that  the  discretion  cannot  be  regarded as having been properly

Page 14

14 exercised.

(6)  The  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta shall not investigate  any  complaint  involving  a  grievance  against  a  public  servant  referred  to  in  sub- clause (iv) or sub-clause (v) of  clause (j) of section 2.

9.  Provisions  relating  to  complaints- (1) Subject to the provisions of  this  Act,  a  complaint  may  be  made  under  this  Act  to  the  Lokayukta or an Up-Lokayukta-

(a) in the case of a grievance,  by the person aggrieved;

(b)  in  the  case  of  an  allegation, by any person other  than a sitting public servant:  

Provided that, where the person  aggrieved is dead or is for any  reason  unable  to  act  for  himself,  the  complaint  may  be  made  by  any  person  who  in  law  represents his estate or, as the  case may be, by any person who  is  authorized  by  him  in  this  behalf.  

Provided  further  that  in  the  case of a grievance involving a  complaint  referred  to  in  sub- clause  (ii)  of  clause  (d)  of  section 2, the complaint may be  made  also  by  an  organization  recognized in that behalf by the

Page 15

15 State Government.

(2)  Every  complaint  shall  be  accompanied by the complainant's  own affidavit in support thereof  and  also  affidavits  of  all  persons from whom he claims to  have  received  information  of  facts  relating  to  the  accusation,  verified  before  a  notary  together  with  all  documents  in  his  possession  or  power  pertaining  to  the  accusation  and  a  sum  of  Two  thousand rupees shall be paid as  security  along  with  the  complaint,  in  respect  to  complaint  involving  allegatio,  filed  under  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayuktas  (Complaint) Rules, 1977.

(3)  Every  complaint  and  affidavit under this section as  well as any schedule or annexure  thereto shall be verified in the  manner laid down in the Code of  Civil  Procedure,  1908,  for  the  verification  of  pleadings  and  affidavits respectively.

(4) Not less than three copies  of the complaint as well as of  each of its annexures shall be  submitted by the complainant.

(5) A complaint which does not  comply with any of the foregoing  provisions  shall  not  be  entertained.

Page 16

16

(6)  Notwithstanding  anything,  contained in sub-sections (1) to  (5), or in any other enactment,  any  letter  written  to  the  Lokayukta  or  Up-Lokayukta  by  a  person in police custody, or in  gaol or in any asylum or other  place for insane persons, shall  be  forwarded  to  the  addressee  unopened  and  without  delay  by  the  police  officer  or  other  persons in charge of such gaol,  asylum, or other place, and the  Lokayukta  or  Up-Lokayukta,  as  the case may be, may entertain  it and treat it as a complaint,  but no action in respect of such  complaint shall be taken unless  it  is  accompanied  or  subsequently  supported  by  an  affidavit under sub-section (2).

10.  Procedure  in  respect  of  investigations.-(1)  Whether  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  proposes  (after  making  such  preliminary inquiry, if any, as  he  deems  fit)  to  conduct  any  investigation  under  this  Act,  he-

(a) shall forward a copy of the  complaint to the public servant  concerned  and  the  competent  authority concerned;  

(b) shall afford to the public  servant concerned an opportunity  to  offer  his  comments  on  such  complaints; and

Page 17

17

(c) may make such orders as to  the  safe  custody  of  documents  relevant  to  the  investigation,  as he deems fit.

(2)  Every  such  investigation  shall  be  conducted  in  private,  and in particular, the identity  of  the  complainant  and  of  the  public  servant  affected  by  the  investigation  shall  not  be  disclosed to the public or the  press whether before, during or  after the investigation:

Provided that, the Lokayukta or  an Up-Lokayukta may conduct any  investigation  relating  to  a  matter  of  definite  public  importance in public, if he, for  reasons  to  be  recorded  in  writing, thinks fit to do so.

(3)  Save  as  aforesaid,  the  procedure  for  conducting  any  such investigation shall be such  as the Lokayukta or, as the case  may  be,  the  Up-Lokayukta  considers  appropriate  in  the  circumstances of the case.

(4)  The  Lokayukta  or  an  Up- Lokayukta  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

Page 18

18 or vexatious, or is not made in  good faith; or

(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.

(5)  In  any  case  where  the  Lokayukta  or  an  Up-Lokayukta  decides  not  to  entertain  a  complaint or to discontinue any  investigation  in  respect  of  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.

(6)  The  conduct  of  an  investigation under this Act in  respect of any action shall not  affect such action, or any power  or duty of any public servant to  take further action with respect  to  any  matter  subject  to  the  investigation.

THE THIRD SCHEDULE  [ See SECTION 8 (1) (b) (i) ]

Page 19

19 (a) Action taken for the purpose  of  investigating  crime  or  protecting  the  security  of  the  Sate.  

(b) Action taken in the exercise  of  powers  in  relation  to  determining  whether  a  matter  shall go to, or shall continue  to be prosecuted in a court or  not.  

(c)  Action  taken  in  matters  which arise out of the terms of  a  contract  governing  purely  commercial  relations  of  the  administration of the Government  or  of  the  local  authority  or  other  corporation,  company  or  society,  as  the  case  may  be,  with  customers  or  suppliers  except  where  the  complainant  alleges  harassment  or  gross  delay  in  meeting  contractual  obligations. (d) Action taken in respect of  appointments  other  than  an  appointment  referred  to  in  clause  (ii)  of  clause  (d)  of  section  2,  removals,  pay,  discipline,  superannuation  or  other  matters  relating  to  conditions of service of public  servants  but  not  including  action  relating  to  claims,  for  pension,  gratuity,  provident  fund  or  to  any  claims  which  arise on retirement, removal or  termination of service.

(e)  Grant  of  honours  and  awards.”

Page 20

20

11. Dr. Rajeev Dhawan, learned Senior  Counsel  appearing  for  the  appellant  has  very  strenuously  urged  that  the  investigation/enquiry  undertaken  by  the  Lokayukta, U.P. in the present case being  in  respect  of  a  matter  covered  by  the  Third  Schedule  is  barred  under  the  provisions  of  Section  8(1)(b)(i)  of  the  Act read with the Third Schedule.  It is  further argued that there was no complaint  to  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  as  mandatorily  required under Section 9 and assuming that  the reminder dated 27th August, 2010 can be  treated  as  a  complaint  it  was  not  supported  by  an  affidavit  of  the  complainant. Dr. Dhawan has further argued  that  under  Rule  5  of  the  Uttar  Pradesh  Lokayukta  and  Up-Lokayukta  Complaint  Rules,  1977  (hereinafter  referred  to  as  “the  Rules”)  framed  under  the  Act,  a  complainant can be granted an opportunity  to  make  up  the  deficiencies  in  the

Page 21

21 complaint  within  a  fixed  period.   The  provisions  of  the  said  Rules,  however,  cannot override the requirement of filing  an affidavit which is mandated by Section  9(2)  of  the  Act.   Alternatively,  it  is  urged  that  even  if  the  said  deficiency  i.e.  absence  of  the  affidavit  of  the  complainant can be cured what had happened  in  the  present  case  is  that  the  said  affidavit of the complainant was filed on  22nd December,  2010  whereas  notice  of  preliminary  enquiry  was  issued  to  the  appellant  on  18th October,  2010.   Dr.  Dhawan  has  further  argued  that  in  the  present  case  no  preliminary  enquiry  was  held  inasmuch  as  no  decision  on  such  preliminary  enquiry  was  communicated  to  the appellant as required under the Act.  Furthermore,  it  is  urged  that  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  in  the  present  case  had  acted  in  undue  haste  inasmuch  as  though  the appellant on 29th September, 2011 had  prayed for 15 days' time to furnish the

Page 22

22 requisite  documents,  the  report  was  published  on  4th October,  2011  without  reference to and due consideration of the  request made by the appellant. Lastly, it  is urged that there was no investigation  in the case as mandated by the Act and no  opportunity  of  personal  hearing  was  afforded to the appellant.

12.  Controverting  the  aforesaid  submissions  made  on  behalf  of  the  appellant,  Shri  Ravi  Prakash  Mehrotra,  learned  counsel  for  the  State  of  Uttar  Pradesh  has  urged  that  the  objections  raised by the appellant before this Court  are  mere  reiterations  of  what  has  been  urged  before  the  High  Court.  All  such  pleas  were  adequately  considered  by  the  High Court in the impugned order dated 11th  

November, 2011 and there is no basis to  reopen the said findings and conclusions  of  the  High  Court.  Pointing  out  the  provisions  of  Section  10(3)  of  the  Act,

Page 23

23 Shri Mehrotra has urged that the procedure  for conducting a proceeding under the Act  would be as may be considered appropriate  by the Lokayukta in the facts of any given  case.   Shri  Mehrotra  has  further  urged  that in the present case on receipt of the  report of the Lokayukta necessary action  has  been  taken  and  presently  a  criminal  trial  is  pending  against  the  appellant.  There  will,  therefore,  be  no  basis  for  this Court to interdict the report of the  Lokayukta.

13. We have considered the submissions  made on behalf of the parties.

14. It is correct that on 18th October,  2010 when the appellant was intimated by  the  office  of  the  Lokayukta  that  a  decision  has  been  taken  to  hold  a  preliminary  enquiry  into  the  complaint  filed by the respondent No.4 and a copy of  the  complaint  along  with  the  enclosures  thereto were forwarded to the appellant,

Page 24

24 the complaint filed was not supported by  an  affidavit  of  the  complainant  –  respondent No.4. The said fact was pointed  out by the appellant in his letter dated  20th December,  2010  addressed  to  the  Secretary, Lokayukta, U.P.  Thereafter, it  appears that the complainant had filed an  affidavit on 22nd December, 2010 in support  of the complaint.  The said affidavit was  taken  on  record  and  thereafter  a  letter  dated 14th February, 2011 was sent by the  Under  Secretary  of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  informing the appellant that the complaint  filed  by  the  4th respondent  has  been  accepted  for  investigation.   Though  not  expressly  mentioned  the  reception/acceptance  of  the  affidavit  of  the  complainant  filed  belatedly  was  permissible in view of the provisions of  Rule  5  of  the  Rules.  Thereafter,  the  appellant raised his objections regarding  the maintainability of the complaint and  the affidavit filed. Instead of passing a

Page 25

25 specific order on the aforesaid issue of  maintainability raised by the appellant it  appears that communications were addressed  by the office of the Lokayukta, U.P. to  the  appellant  asking  for  submission  of  replies and documents which communications  were  duly  responded  to  by  the  appellant  from time to time i.e. 5th July, 2011, 5th  

August,  2011  and  24th August,  2011.  The  said  facts  would  indicate  that  the  preliminary  objection  raised  by  the  appellant  did  not  find  favour  of  the  Lokayukta.  The  same  was  not  expressly  recorded  but  clearly  evident  from  the  steps  taken  in  continuance  of  the  proceeding  which  was  not  objected  to  by  the appellant.

15.    On  receipt  of  the  documents  submitted by the appellant on the various  dates mentioned above, the office of the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  by  letter  dated  20th  

September,  2011  asked  for  further

Page 26

26 documents  from  the  appellant  i.e.  consolidated audited balance sheet of last  three  years  of  Keshav  Prasad  Indravati  Devi  Smriti  Seva  Samiti,  Modern  Girls  Inter  College,  Abhaypur,  Keshav  Prasad  Indravati  Devi  Balika  Inter  College  Sahsepur, the Registration Certificate of  Income Tax made in Form 12-A in respect of  Keshav Prasad Indravati Devi Smriti Seva  Samiti  and  copies  of  Income  Tax  Return  filed in Form 7 in last three years in  respect  of  Keshav  Prasad  Indravati  Devi  Smriti  Seva  Samiti.   The  appellant  by  letter dated 29th September, 2011 asked for  15  days'  time.   Instead  on  4th October,  2011 the report of the Lokayukta, U.P. was  submitted.

16. Though  the  first  complaint  (undated) submitted by the respondent No.4  was not addressed to the Lokayukta, U.P.,  the reminder dated 27th August, 2010 was  addressed,  inter alia,  to the Lokayukta,

Page 27

27 U.P.  If that is so, there is no reason  why the same cannot be understood to be a  complaint  to  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  for  further  action  on  the  basis  thereof.  If  reception/acceptance  of  a  subsequent  affidavit of the complainant in support of  a complaint filed earlier is contemplated  by Rule 5 of the Rules, we do not see why  any fault can be found in the action of  the  Lokayukta,  U.P.  in  accepting  the  affidavit  dated  22nd December,  2010  submitted by the complainant.  Though the  notice  dated  18th October,  2010  for  preliminary  enquiry  was  issued  at  an  earlier stage, it is by the communication  dated 14th February, 2011, (after receipt  of the affidavit dated 22nd December, 2010)  that the appellant was informed that the  complaint of the respondent No.4 has been  accepted  for  investigation  under  Section  10(1)(a) of the Act.  If, in the light of  the aforesaid facts, the Lokayukta, U.P.  had  decided  to  proceed  further  in  the

Page 28

28 matter  and  had  issued  communications  to  the  appellant  asking  for  his  reply  and  documents in defence which were adequately  responded to by the appellant on several  dates, as noticed earlier, we do not see  how the appellant can be understood to be  justified in raising the issue of defect  of  procedure  before  the  High  Court  and  before this Court. The capitulation of the  relevant  dates  and  events  leave  no  room  for doubt that all requirements under the  Act have been complied with in the instant  case.  

17. While  it  is  correct  that  the  report  of  the  Lokayukta  was  submitted  without  affording  any  opportunity  of  personal hearing to the appellant and the  request  for  time  for  submission  of  the  documents  made  by  the  appellant  on  29th  

September,  2011  was  refused  by  the  Lokayukta,  the  said  facts  cannot  constitute good and sufficient basis for

Page 29

29 this Court to find fault with the conduct  of the proceedings by the Lokayukta, U.P.  in view of the provisions of Section 10(3)  of  the  Act  which,  as  already  noticed,  leaves to the Lokayukta the discretion to  adopt such procedure as may be considered  appropriate  in  the  given  facts  of  the  case.  No prejudice also has been caused  to the appellant who had taken part in the  proceedings at every stage.  The refusal  to grant further time to the appellant, an  issue over which some grievance has been  raised, is a matter of discretion vested  in the Lokayukta and any decision thereon  either  way  cannot  be  a  legitimate  basis  for interference.   

18. Before  parting,  the  issue  with  regard  to  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Lokayukta to proceed in the instant matter  in  view  of  the  provisions  of  the  Third  Schedule  to  the  Act  must  be  answered.  What  the  Third  Schedule  to  the  Act

Page 30

30 contemplates is that the Lokayukta in the  course of an investigation under the Act  will not investigate a crime or determine  the  question  as  to  whether  the  matter  “shall  go  to,  or  shall  continue  to  be  prosecuted in a court or not”.  In the  present case, the recommendations of the  Lokayukta were merely for an investigation  as to whether a case for prosecution of  the  appellant  is  made  out  or  not.  Accordingly,  the  matter  was  investigated  and presently is under trial in a court of  competent  jurisdiction.  All  the  said  subsequent  facts  as  noted  in  details  at  the very outset make it clear that even if  the  contentions  of  the  appellant  with  regard to the Third Schedule to the Act  are to be accepted, (we make it clear that  we do not accept the same), the question  that  would  arise  has  become  wholly  academic.

Page 31

31 19. In the light of the above, we find  no  merit  in  this  appeal.   It  is  accordingly  dismissed,  however,  without  any order as to costs.

....................,J.    (RANJAN GOGOI)

....................,J.    (N.V. RAMANA)

NEW DELHI APRIL 10, 2015