C.J.BALARAM Vs. ILAP

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have called in question the orders passed by the Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh, issuing directions to lodge criminal complaints before the Additional Director General of Police, CB CID, A.P; as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this common order.

(2.) In view of the nature of the order that is being passed in this batch of writ petitions, facts stated in each of the writ petitions are not being referred. The main ground of challenge to the order passed by the Lokayukta is that before directing to lodge criminal complaints against the petitioners basing upon the report of the District Collector or any other authority, which was called for by the Lokayukta, no opportunity of hearing has been granted to the petitioners.

(3.) Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the law laid down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in S. Jagadeswar v. The Lok Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors. - 1996 (4) ALT 1072, and that of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Govt. of Andhra Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I) and others - 2014 (4) AT 645 and Dr. R.G. Sunil Reddy v. A.P. Lokayukta - (2015) 6 ALD 302, to argue that before recommending initiation of either departmental action or criminal action, service of notice and opportunity of hearing to the public servants is mandatory.