RAMACHANDRAN MASTER K K Vs. K JYOTHILAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Writ Appeal is filed against the judgment of the learned single Judge upholding the maintainability of the complaint filed by the first respondent against the appellant before the Lok Ayukta under Section 7(1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter called the "Act". We have heard senior counsel Sri O.V. Radhakrishnan appearing for the appellant and Government Pleader appearing for respondents 2 and 3. Even though notice was served on the first respondent, he has not entered appearance.

(2.) On receipt of copy of the complaint from the Lok Ayukta, the appellant filed an application before the Lok Ayukta raising objection about maintainability of the complaint. Since Lok Ayukta did not hear on the maintainability, the appellant approached this Court with a Writ Petition for issue of a writ of mandamus to Lok Ayukta to consider the preliminary issue on the maintainability of the complaint before proceeding with the complaint. However, the learned single Judge at the admission stage itself dismissed the Writ Petition holding that the appellant's challenge against maintainability with reference to Rule 22 of the Kerala Government Servants (Conduct) Rules, 1960, hereinafter called the "Rules", is not tenable. It is seen from the copy of the complaint and in the cause title that the first respondent who launched complaint before the Lok Ayukta, is the President of the Akhila Kerala Government Ayurveda College Adhyapaka Sanghatana, Trivandrum. Since the complainant had not specifically stated that he had filed the complaint in his capacity as President of the Ayurveda College Adhyapaka Sanghatana, the appellant herein challenged the maintainability of the complaint filed by the first respondent on the ground that being a Government servant he can maintain a complaint before the Lok Ayukta under Rule 22 of the Rules only with the prior permission of the Government, which the complainant obviously had not obtained. However, the learned single Judge held that Rule 22 does not apply to the complaint in this case because the complaint filed was not for redressal of personal grievance but was only an allegation falling under Section 2(b) of the Act.

(3.) The learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant relying on the decisions of the Supreme Court in Kerala Solvent Extraction Ltd. v. Unnikrishnan, 1994 1 KerLT 651 and State of Karnataka v. Registrar General, High Court of Karnataka, 2000 7 SCC 333, contended that this Court while deciding the dispute on maintainability has exceeded its powers inasmuch as the relief sought was only mandamus and the appellant did not want this Court to decide the matter by itself and pre-empt Lok Ayukta before which the issue was raised. Since the appellant had raised maintainability of the complaint before the Lok Ayukta, it was the duty of the Lok Ayukta to consider and decide the same before proceeding with the complaint. Since the Lok Ayukta failed to do so, the appellant rightly approached this Court and this Court could have issued a writ of mandamus and closed the matter. However, we are of the view that in writ proceedings under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, this Court is not bound to confine itself to the relief sought and it is open to this Court to mould suitable relief depending upon the nature of the case. Even though senior counsel has pressed for the very same relief in this Appeal, that is, a mandamus to the Lok Ayukta to consider the maintainability of the complaint, without being influenced by the findings of the learned single Judge, we are of the view that once the matter is decided by the learned single Judge on merits, the Division Bench should not allow the very same issue to be agitated before the lower authority which will give a handle to a lower authority to overrule the judgment of learned single Judge on merits. In fact, in many cases, Division Benches of this Court have neutralised the judgments rendered on merit by the learned single Judges and remanded the matter to the lower authorities, like Revenue Officials, Panchayath Authorities, etc for reconsideration of the matter untrammelled by the findings of the learned single Judges. This practice is certainly to be deprecated because such a direction will give a handle to the lower authorities to overrule the findings on merits rendered by the learned single Judges of this Court. In our view, once matter is decided by the learned single Judge on merits irrespective of whether it was required or not then Division Bench in appeal is bound to consider the case on merits and either affirm the finding of the learned single Judge or reverse it and the matter should never be remanded to the lower authorities to decide the issue on merits at variance with the findings of the learned single Judge which will certainly affect the authority and prestige of this Court. This is because in our view, a learned single Judge's findings should never be allowed to be reviewed by a lower authority. In other words, the findings of a learned single Judge subject to reversal or modification by Division Bench of this Court or by the Supreme Court should be allowed to achieve finality. Even though Division Benches hearing Appeals have ample powers which include the authority to remand the matter, it is our earnest wish and desire that they should not confer virtual appellate jurisdiction over learned single Judge's judgments on authorities like Tahsildars, Sales Tax Officers, etc. by remanding cases decided by learned single Judges on merits. We therefore decline to grant the relief sought for by the appellant to remand the case to the Lok Ayukta to consider the maintainability of the complaint because we do not want to give authority to Lok Ayukta to overrule judgment of a learned single Judge of this Court, We therefore proceed to consider the correctness of the findings rendered by the learned single Judge with regard to maintainability of the petition before Lok Ayukta.