WERM INDIA LIMITED Vs. LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present petition raises the question about the scope and ambit of the powers and extent of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The petitioner has filed this petition to challenge the report of the Lokayukta on the ground that he had no jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations against the private individuals nor could be widen the scope of inquiry so as to inquire into a matter for which he has not issued notice to the public functionaries. Under Section 7 of the Act, the Lokayukta has jurisdiction to inquire into the allegations made against a public functionary in relation to whom either the President or the Lieutenant Governor is the competent authority. The public functionary is defined in Section 2(m) of the Act and the same does not include any private individual or a company which is not a Government company. The "allegations" into which the inquiry can be initiated by the Lokayukta are defined in Section 2(b) of the Act. The challenge of the petitioner to the report of the Lokayukta, therefore, is that as under the Act he had no jurisdiction to inquire into the alleged allegations against the petitioner, which is a private company and the report submitted by him casting aspersions upon the petitioner is liable to be quashed. It is also the case of the petitioner that even otherwise the procedure followed by the Lokayukta while inquiring into the allegations was in violation of the principles of natural justice and on the basis of this procedure, which is not known to law, the reputation of the petitioner has been tarnished and though by Section 15 of the Act jurisdiction of the Court is barred from questioning the report, the petitioner has still challenged the report on the ground that the judicial review being a part of the basic structure of Constitution cannot be whittelled down in any manner whatsoever and in any case since the report is without jurisdiction, Section 15 of the Act would not bar the filing of the present petition. A few facts relevant for disposal of this writ petition may be summarised as under :-

(2.) A reading of the notice shows that the Lokayukta had initiated inquiry into the allegations about the award of the work to the petitioner company. The Lokayukta, however, during the course of inquiry into the aforesaid allegations started making inquiries into the execution of the contract by the petitioner. While making inquiries into the execution of the work, he came to a finding that under the contract the petitioner was required to use the liner designed and manufactured of patented GRP liner from Channeline, U.K., however, the petitioner had used the indigenously manufactured liner. The Lokayukta was, therefore, of the view that the parties were bound by the terms and conditions of the contract and if the contract provided that the lining units were to be designed and manufactured of patented GRP liner from Channeline, U.K., these lining material had to conform to the contract. Another observation of the Lokayukta in the report is that under the contract the petitioner was required to do desilting work with the use of super sucker, however, it had allegedly come in evidence before him that desilting work was being done manually and with a winch the sludge is taken out of the main-hole pit and thrown outside. The Lokayukta was, therefore, of the view that the clause in the agreement that super sucker would be used for desilting work and for which the company had already entered into technical collaboration agreement with a foreign company and the super sucker was to be shifted from Pitsburg, U.S.A., was just to serve their own end and Delhi Jal Board should have insisted on arranging the super sucker before the start of desilting work. It was observed by the Lokayukta that desilting work was in progress completely in violation of the contract and without any protest from the Delhi Jal Board. The Lokayukta, therefore, in his final report gave findings as to how the petitioner were executing the contract in clear breach of the conditions of the contract. Some of the findings of the Lokayukta were as under:-

(3.) The Lokayukta, therefore, observed that he had pointed out some serious infirmities in the award and execution of the work and in fact what should have been done by the Senior Engineers and Officers of the Delhi Jal Board was done by the Lokayukta and he was from time to time discussing and pointing out to the Chief Engineer and Director (Finance) about the defects and infirmities seen in the execution of the work. It was observed that it was the Lokayukta who had pointed out to the Delhi Jal Board that desilting work was being done manually which was contrary to the terms of the contract and also questioned why the super sucker was not being imported. He also observed that it was the Lokayukta who had pointed out that the contractors had not imported GRP liner and the import documents showed import of siliceous based sewer lining material.