STATE OF KARNATAKA AND OTHERS Vs. KEMPAIAH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEAVE is granted.

(2.) IN these appeals, filed by the State of Karnataka against the common judgment of the Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dated 2nd July, 1996 in Writ Petition No. 16857 of 1993 and Criminal Petition No. 1155 of 1993, only that part of the judgment is assailed; which deals with the interpretation of 'action' as defined in Section 2(1) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (for short "the K. L. Act").

(3.) MR . Nagaraja, the learned counsel for the appellants, contended that under Section 7(2) of the K.L. Act the Uplokayukta was competent to investigate into the allegation of amassing of wealth by the respondent as it would fall within the meaning of the word 'action' in Section 2(1) of that Act and that narrow construction of tha word by the High Court would defeat the very purpose of the Act. Mr. T.V. Ratnam, the learned counsel for the respondent, submitted that the Preamble of the Act itself would show that the Act was confined to administrative actions taken by any public servant, therefore the allegation of amassing of wealth could not be an administrative action for purposes of Section 7 and the High Court had rightly interpreted that word.