B M MUNIAPPA Vs. STATE OF KARNATAKA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the Counsel for the petitioner and the respondents.

(2.) The facts of the case are as follows:

(3.) The Counsel for the petitioner while reiterating the above sequence of events, would submit that while Sub-section (1) of Section 7 of the Act enumerates that the public servants, complaints against whom could be investigated by the Lokayukta, Sub-section (2) of the Section 7 empowers the Upalokayukta to investigate the complaints against actions of public servants other than those which fall within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Since the petitioner was not a public servant as specified under Sub-section (1) of Section 7, the complaint against them could not have been investigated by the Lokayukta and hence, his report is without jurisdiction. Consequently, the impugned order passed on such a recommendation by the first respondent is also not sustainable and hence liable to be quashed.