RAJENDRA MANUBHAI PATEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . These four petitions raise common questions of facts and law and are being dealt with and disposed of together at the instance of the learned Counsel of the parties.

(2.) . The petitioners, in all these matters, have sought to challenge the action of the Lokayukta in summoning them to remain present as witnesses along with documents mentioned in the summons on the ground that they cannot be so summoned without being disclosed the identity of the complainant, the public functionaries involved and the nature of allegations made against such public functionaries. The petitioners have also challenged the legislative competence of the State Legislature in enacting 'The Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986' as also the provisions of Sec. 11 read with Sees. 2(2), 15, 16 and 18 of the said Act as ultra vires the Constitution. It is also contended that, if the provisions of Sec. 10(2) of the said Act are so construed as to bar the disclosure of the identity of the complainant and the public functionary to the witness who is to be called then the provision must be struck down as unconstitutional.

(3.) . The Registrar of the Lokayukta issued summons on the petitioner, Rajendra Manubhai Patel (Special Civil Application No. 994 of 1991) on 28/08/1990 requiring him to remain present as a witness on 2/09/1990 at the time mentioned therein in connection with Complaint No. 2 of 1990 in the office of the Lokayukta of the Gujarat State at Gandhinagar. In the list annexed to the summons, the petitioner who was formerly the Chief Promoter and the Chairman of Mani Laxmi Co-operative Housing Society, Part IV, was called upon to bring with him the record mentioned therein including books of accounts pertaining to the said society. It appears from the averments made in the petition that the land purchased for the proposed society belonged to the public trust, Ahmedabad Panjra Pole Sanstha, the sale agreement was made on 14/07/1980, the society was registered on 30/12/1989, the State Government granted permission under Sec. 63C of the Bombay Tenancy and Agricultural Lands Act and Rule 36 of the Rules framed thereunder on 27-12-1989, permission of the Charity Commissioner was obtained on 5-2-1990 and the sale deed was executed on 15-2-1990 and registered on 16-2-1990. The said petitioner, by his letter dated 30/08/1990, informed the respondent No. 2, Registrar of the Office of the Lokayukta that as he was to go to Ambaji on 6-9-1990 it was not possible for him to remain present and therefore any other appropriate date may be given. The respondent No. 2 therefore issued fresh summons dated 7/09/1990 requiring the said pititioner to remain present with the documents mentioned in the list annexed at the office of the Lokayukta in Criminal Complaint No. 2 of 1990 at the appointed time on 20/09/1990. The said petitioner, by his letter dated 17/09/1990 informed the respondent No. 2 that as he had sprained his foot he was not in a position to walk and therefore any other appropriate date may be given in the matter. It appears from the copy of the letter at Annexure 'F' to the petition that another witness summons was issued on 28-9-1990 to the petitioner in connection with the same complaint and the society in connection therewith took up the stand that the witness summons served was very wide and vague and that it appeared to them that some persons out to harass them had made some baseless allegations as a result of which the witness summons was issued and the documents were called for. The society requested the respondent No. 2 to send a copy of the Complaint No. 2 of 1990 along with the copy of the documents produced with the complaint so that the matter may be kept before the General Meeting of the society and one of the employees of the society can be deputed at the hearing of the complaint. A draft of Rs. 100.00 was forwarded towards expenses to the respondent No. 2. The respondent No. 2 by his letter dated 4/10/1990 informed the said petitioner that despite the witness summons issued on him in accordance with law he had failed to appear in obedience thereof under a lame excuse and that since he was only called as a witness he was not required to know as to which documents were required to be produced along with the complaint nor was it necessary for the office to inform him about the identity of the complainant or the public functionary. He was also informed that it was not his concern to go into the question of the relevancy of the documents which were required to be produced. He was further informed that the witness summons sought his personal presence and it any one else was to be deputed it would amount to non-compliance with the summons. It appears that, despite the said letter, the petitioner did not respond and the respondent No. 2 again issued similar summons dated 4-1-1991 on the said petitioner requiring him to remain present on 11-1-1991 along with the documents and again similar summons dated 11-1-1991 for the same purpose requiring him to remain present on 16-1-1991. It appears that the said petitioner did not comply with said summons also and has filed the said petition (Special Civil Application No. 994 of 1991) on 24/01/1991. The other three cognate matters which were heard along with Special Civil Application No. 994 of 1991 arc also filed by persons called as witnesscss by respondent No. 2 in connection with the same Complaint No. 2 of 1990 and since the facts and contentions are similar, it is not necessary to narrate them.