K K RAMACHANDRAN MASTER Vs. KERALA LOK AYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Simple but significant question that arises in these three connected writ petitions is as to whether the Lok Ayukta, exercising powers under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as 'Act of 1999", has suo motu powers to conduct any investigation with respect to matters in its domain envisaged under the Act. Put in other words, whether the Lok Ayukta under the Act of 1999 would have jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint which may be received by him without complying with the necessary procedure as enshrined under the various provisions of the Act. Before we may, however, delve on the question as posed above in the context of rival contentions raised by the counsel representing the parties it would be useful to give a resume of the fact culminating into filing of the three petitions which the learned counsel representing the parties ad idem need to be disposed of by a common order.

(2.) W.P.(C).5250 of 2006 has been filed by K.K. Ramachandran Master who, at the relevant time, was Minister for Health, Government of Kerala. On 16.08.2005, the President, Kerala Government Medical Officers Association, Thiruvananthapuram sent a letter addressed to the learned Lok Ayukta, Kerala making certain allegations against one Sri .P. Radhakrishnan, the 3rd respondent arrayed in the petition, who was at that time Additional Private Secretary to Minister for Health (Exhibit P1). It is the case of the petitioner that in the letter aforesaid, there was no allegation against him. The relief made in the letter to the Lok Ayukta was to interfere in the issue and give direction to remove Sri. P. Radhakrishnan, Additional Private Secretary immediately from the personal staff or change the Portfolio of Health from Mr. K.K. Ramachandran immediately. There was also a request for a detailed vigilance enquiry against Sri. P. Radhakrishnan, which primarily pertained to his amassing wealth while discharging his duties. It may not be necessary to give further reference to the allegations made against Sri K.K. Ramachandran Master. Suffice it, however, to mention that it has inter alia been stated in the letter Exhibit P1 that after Sri. K.K. Ramachandran Master took over the charge as Minister for Health in September 2004, his Additional Private Secretary started interfering in all Departmental matters out of way demanding huge amount of bribe from doctors and paramedical staff for transfer and posting and if anybody was not willing to give the amount, he would forcefully suspend or transfer the person from that post. He was also doing negotiations with the medical companies for purchase of medicines worth hundred crores every year and accepting commission on behalf of the Minister and this amount goes to the pocket of the Minister and not to be party. On 22.8.2005, Lok Ayukta made the following endorsement on Exhibit P1: "Registrar, Send this to the S.P. Attached to this forum for an enquiry and report." The Registrar, in compliance with the orders as reproduced above, it appears, sent the matter to the Superintendent of Police who, after some preliminary enquiries, sent a report on 30.12.2005 (Exhibit P2). The operative part of the report reads as follows: -

(3.) It is in the wake of the circumstances as detailed above, the present petition was filed calling in question the orders/directions as contained in Exhibits P1 to P5, P10 and P11. The petitioner also seeks a declaration that the entire procedure so far adopted by the learned Lok Ayukta, Kerala is wrong, illegal, without jurisdiction and highly arbitrary. The other prayer of the petitioner is to issue an appropriate writ, order or direction to the 1st respondent, Kerala Lok Ayukta to consider and dispose of Exhibits P7, P8 and P9 interlocutory applications and decide the question of maintainability of the complaint before proceeding any further with the complaint. Obviously, this prayer appears to be in the alternative or in the event the 1st prayer may not find favour with this Court.