RAMA RAO Vs. LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Andhra Pradesh High Court made on 23-4-1996 in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715/96. An order was made by the Government on April 2, 1996 in GOMS No.62 granting certain amount to the Director of Medical Education for expansion of the works in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Two generators were to be erected in the hospital. The petitioner was required to submit the report on the estimates. In furtherance thereof, the petitioner submitted the report to the Superintendent Engineer and tenders were called for. It would appear that several people had submitted their tenders and the initial estimate was of Rs.15 lakhs and odd for one set of the generator. Subsequently, it would appear that the estimate was increased to Rs.21 lakhs per set. In that behalf, an anonymous complaint came to be made before the Lokayukta of A.P. constituted under S.3 of the A.P. Lokayukta and Up Lokayukta Act, 1983, (Act No.II of 1983) (for short, the 'Act'). After conducting preliminary investigation, the Lokayukta came to submit his interim order dated March 29, 1996 prohibiting purchase of the two sets and also by interim report dated April 6, 1996 directed the Government either to suspend the petitioner or to transfer him and to take similar action on the Superintendent Engineer as well. The petitioner came to challenge the two orders in the above writ petitions. In the writ petitions, the petitioner challenged the constitutionality of Ss.3, 4, 7 and 12 of the Act as ultra vires Arts. 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of the Constitution of India. He also challenged the validity of the interim report. The High Court dismissed the writ petitions upholding their validity. On the question of interim report, the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that the High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the merits of the interim report. Thus, the petitioner has filed these SLPs.

(2.) As regards the constitutionality of the above provisions, in fairness, Mr. A. Subba Rao, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had not pressed the same in these SLPs stating that the matters are pending adjudication in another appeal. But he seriously objected to the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta in submitting the report for taking action against the petitioner for suspension of him or to transfer him to any other place. According to the learned counsel, the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to take action and Up-Lokayukta came to be appointed under the Act. We find no force in the contention.

(3.) Sub-section (1) and (2) of S.7 give power to Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta respectively to investigate into any action concerning persons respectively mentioned therein. Sub-sec. (3) of S.7 enables Lokayukta, notwithstanding the power conferred under sub-sec. (2) thereof on the Up-Lokayukta to take suo motu action in respect of any action contemplated under the Act. Therefore, the only condition precedent required thereunder is to record reasons for initiating suo motu enquiry divesting the power of the Up-Lokayukta and taking action under sub-sec. (3) of S.7 of the Act. It is next contended that the petitioner has not been given any opportunity before submitting the report to the Government and the action is contrary to S.10 read with S.12 of the Act. We find no force in the contention.