A K SUBBAJAH Vs. LOKAYUKTA FOR KARNATAKA BANGALORE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) the petitioner along with one rangaswamy, son of range gowda, of koniganahalli village, somwarpet taluk, kodagu district, filed a complaint before the lokayukta respondent No. 1 complaining that respondents 2 to 5 had committed certain acts or omitted to discharge their duties being public servants. The 1st respondent passed an order on 17-6-1986 dismissing the complaint filed by them. Thereafter, they filed an application seeking revival of the complaint which was also dismissed by the 1st respondent. While doing so, the 1st respondent made certain comments which, the petitioner submits, are not called for. The petitioner being aggrieved by the order made by the 1st respondent on 17-6-1986 and the order made on the subsequent application on 8-7-1986, while challenging the legality thereof seeks for quashing of the said two orders and for a mandamus to consider the material placed before him and to conduct an investigation into the allegations levelled against respondents 2 to 5 under Section 9(3) of the Karnataka lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter, for short, referred to as the 'act'). Petitioner also seeks for a direction to expunge the remarks set out in the schedule to the petition.

(2.) the complaint made to the 1st respondent by the petitioner along with rangaswamy briefly stated is as follows: in the year 1981 applications to fill up the posts of sub- inspector of police were notified. The said rangaswamy, one of the complainants before respondent No. 1, applied for the same. One nagarathnamma stated to be the sister of respondents 3 and 4 is said to have assured the said rangaswamy of securing him the post with the help of respondent No. 3 and shakuntala hegde, wife of respondent No. 2, on the understanding that he would pay a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to nagarathnamma and thereafter another sum of Rs. 10,000/- to be paid after selection is made. Accordingly, the said rangaswamy is stated to have paid a sum of Rs. 30,000/- to the said nagarathnamma. However, he found, he was not selected in the results announced on 7-7-1985. His efforts to recover the money from the said nagarathnamma went in vain. Similarly, his representations to respondent 2 and his meeting with shakuntala hegde wife of respondent 2 also proved futile. Subsequently rangaswamy made a complaint to respondent 5, but the latter did not take action. Respondent 4 on the other hand, induced the said rangaswamy to withdraw the complaint promising him repayment of the money paid by him. The said nagarathnamma got three cheques issued for a total sum of Rs. 12,500/- by her husband in favour of the brother-in-law of the said rangaswamy. The balance of Rs. 17,500/- was also promised to be repaid after collecting it from shakuntala hegde, wife of respondent 2, and respondent No. 3.

(3.) on this complaint, the lokayukta conducted a preliminary enquiry as contemplated under Section 9 of the act. The 1st respondent found it not necessary to examine the petitioner. But, rangaswamy who is stated to have personal knowledge of the matter and who was directly involved in it was examined. In the course of his statement, it is stated that he made it clear that the petitioner did not have any knowledge of the facts of the case. On that basis proceeded to examine only the said rangaswamy. The lokayukta considered the complaint, statement on oath made by the said rangaswamy and the documents produced along with the complaint and held there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or continuing the investigation in the matter.