STATE OF GUJARAT Vs. AMARSINHBHAI BHAILALBHAI CHAUDHARY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RULE. Mr.Tushar Mehta, learned advocate waives service of Rule for Respondent No.1.

(2.) The State of Gujarat through its Chief Secretary to the Government, being aggrieved by the order dated 0 9/07/1999 passed in Special Civil Application No.2397 of 1999, has preferred this appeal. Respondent No.1 preferred Special Civil Application No.1026 of 1998 challenging the appointment of Lokayukta and the said matter is pending before the Division Bench. The respondents received a notice dated 0 5/02/1999 from the Registrar of the Lokayukta in Form No.'E'. Without going to the details suffice it to say that an application dated 2 5/02/1999 was preferred before His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat under sub-Section (3) of Section 19 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act, 1986 (hereinafter referred to as the Act). Respondent No.1 received the reply dated 0 9/03/1999 from the Principal Secretary to His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat stating that " The State Government had submitted the proposal to entrust the inquiry in the instant case to the Lokayukta for approval of His Excellency the Governor and the same was approved by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat. The order granting permission under Section 19 (4) of the said Act was passed in the relevant file of the Government submitted to His Excellency." The petitioner appears to have applied for recalling the order under Section 19 (3) of the Act vide application dated 0 3/03/1999. It transpires that His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat was pleased to reject the said application. Respondent No.1 has challenged the decision/order purported to have been passed by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat on 17/01/1997 and/or 2 8/01/1997 directing investigation against respondent No.1 under sub-section (3) of Section 19 of the Act. Respondent No.1 also challenged the order dated 15/03/1999 passed by His Excellency the Governor of Gujarat. Section 19 of the Act reads as under:

(3.) From the text of the order passed by the learned Single Judge, it transpires that the learned Additional Advocate General was agreeable to the order that the investigation before the Lokayukta may proceed but his report may be kept in a sealed cover and may not be submitted to the competent authority under the Act. It seems that the State is aggrieved as the learned Single Judge has granted interim relief restraining the Lokayukta from holding investigation. Relying upon the averments made by the original petitioner as regards bias of the Lokayukta, our attention was drawn to Section 8 of the Act which reads as under: