DIRECTOR Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By way of the present writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, The Director, Centre for Development of Imaging Technology, has prayed as under:

(2.) The challenge in the present petition is against Ext.P4. i.e., the complaint filed the 5th respondent seeking direction to conduct a detailed enquiry into the maladministration and illegalities on the part of the present petitioner in entering into the BOT agreement with the C-DIT and the 4th respondent, mainly on the ground that the Lok Ayukta has no jurisdiction to deal with such complaints. In response to the notice issued, counter affidavit was filed by the original complainant. The original complainant has produced an order dtd. 2/6/2011 passed by the Lok Ayukta in I.A.No.419/2010 filed by the present petitioner in the pending complaint, by which, specific challenge was raised with regard to maintainability of the complainant and limitation in filing the complaint. By the said order, the Lok Ayukta held the complaint to be prima facie maintainable and the I.A filed by the present petitioner came to be dismissed. Considering the above aspect, we are of the opinion that the present petitioner ought to have referred to the application filed before the Lok Ayukta with similar prayers, which was rejected way back in the year 2011. There is no mention about such proceedings, or the order which was passed way back on 2/6/2011 in I.A.No.419/2010 filed by the present petitioner.

(3.) In our considered opinion, the petitioner ought to have challenged the said order dtd. 2/6/2011, by which, the issue has been decided by the Lok Ayukta, by filing a petition with appropriate reliefs. Till date, no such prayers have been made and there is no reply to the counter affidavit filed by the original complainant.