RAJKUMAR BHARATLAL Vs. GOVERNMENT OF ANDHRA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this Writ Petition, portion of the order of the Honble Lokayukta has been challenged basically by way of modification before this Court contending that the Honble Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to grant interim relief but can enquire into the matter finally and recommend.

(2.) THE learned Standing Counsel for the Honble Lokayukta and the learned counsel for the added unofficial respondents submit that it is the writ petitioner who has invited the Honble Lokayukta to pass interim order. So, he is estopped from challenging the order on the ground of jurisdiction. He has drawn our attention to the complaint made by the writ petitioner himself and now, the writ petitioner having found that a portion of the order passed, is adverse against him has taken a somersault and questioned the authority of the Honble Lokayukta. Learned Standing Counsel for the Honble Lokayukta has also drawn our attention to the prayer of the writ petition and submits that the writ petitioner has not challenged the order passed by the Honble Lokayukta.

(3.) WE set out hereunder Section 7 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), which is the source of power.