B.B. TAMBAKAD, ADDITIONAL DIRECTOR (RETIRED), HEALTH AND FAMILY WELFARE DEPARTMENT Vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY AND THE HONBLE LOKAYUKTA FOR KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY THE DEPUTY REGISTRAR (ADMINISTRATION)@RESPONDE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HEARD rite Counsel for the petitioner and the respondent.

(2.) THE facts briefly stated are as follows: The petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 31.7.2002 which is an order by the State Government referring a matter for investigation by the Lokayukta and the final investigation report submitted by the Lokayukta. It transpires that there were allegations of omission and commission by the petitioner during his tenure as the Additional Director, Health and Family Welfare Department and it is on the basis of such allegation that the State Government had referred the matter to the Lokayukta for investigation under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' for brevity). The Lokayukta in turn having initially investigated the affairs of the department in which the petitioner was acting as the Additional Director through its Technical Wing had thereafter, submitted an Investigation Report and a Final Investigation Report holding that the petitioner along with ethers was responsible for causing loss to the State Government to the extent of Rs. 70,85,000/ -.

(3.) THE Counsel would further submit that according to Section 8 of the Act, which provides for matters which cannot be the subject matter of investigation by the Lokayukta. In terms of Clause (a) that any action which relates to any matter specified in the Second Schedule cannot be investigated. From n reading, of the Second Schedule, the Counsel would seek to demonstrate that under Clause (c) of the Second Schedule, any matter which arises out of the terms of a contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration with customers or suppliers. As the present case on hand involved the supply of I.V. fluids by the manufacturer which is a State Government organization and the petitioner acting as the Additional Director of the Procuring Authority would squarely involve a transaction which relates to supply of goods and therefore, would fall under Second Schedule and hence, the Lokayukta did not have the power of investigation of the matter and hence, would submit that the Lokayukta will not have the jurisdiction to have enquired into and to have submitted the report.