(1.) DR. P. Sitapati Rao, hitherto the Additional director General (Irrigation), National academy of Construction and Ex-officio advisor, Irrigation and Command Area development Department of the Government of A. P. has filed these two writ petitions. In w. P. No. 5563 of 2007, the order of the honourable Lokayukta dated 05. 03. 2007 in holding him to be a "public servant", both under Section 2 (k) (iii) and 2 (k) (v) (4) of the a. P. Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as Act 11 of 1983), and as amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, is under challenge. In w. P. No. 13933 of 2007, the provisions of section 10 of the A. P. Lokayukta and Upa lokayukta Act, 1983, (hereinafter referred to as "act 11 of 1983"), is under challenge, in so far as it empowered the Lokayukta to suo motu conduct an investigation and to adjudicate issues, as ultravires Article 14 of the Constitution of India. The petitioner also seeks to have the order passed by the lokayukta, in C. M. P. Nos. 5 and 6 in complaint No. 890/2005/b1 dated 25. 6. 2007, set aside. In C. M. P. No. 5, the petitioner had requested the Lokayukta to cause an enquiry into the reasons why phone calls were made from the Registry and the interest of the individual in getting the proceedings of the lokayukta published in newspapers. In c. M. P. No. 6, the petitioner sought transfer of Complaint No. 890/2005/b1 from the file of the Hon'ble Lokayukta to the file of the Hon'ble upa Lokayukta.
(2.) SINCE Sri S. R. Ashok, Learned Senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioner, has fairly stated that the petitioner was not pressing Writ Petition No. 13933 of 2007, it is not necessary for us to examine either the vires of Section 10 of Act 11 of 1983 or the orders passed by the Lokayukta in C. M. P. Nos. 5 and 6, in Complaint No. 890/2005/b1, dated 25. 6. 2007. W. P. No. 13933 of 2007 is dismissed as not pressed.
(3.) EVEN in W. P. No. 5563 of 2007, sri S. R. Ashok, Learned Senior Counsel, has confined his submissions, on the validity of the order of the Lokayukta dated 5. 3. 2007, to the limited extent that the petitioner was held to be a "public servant". Learned Senior counsel seeks adjudication only on the question whether the petitioner was, during the relevant period, a public servant within the meaning of either Section 2 (k) (iii) or section 2 (k) (v) (4) of Act 11 of 1983, for, according to him, it is only if the petitioner is held as such would he be amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. Learned Senior counsel would request that the other questions raised in this writ petition be left open. Since our decision is invited only on the question whether the petitioner is a "public servant", either under Section 2 (k) (iii) or 2 (k) (v) (4) of Act 11 of 1983, it is wholly unnecessary for us to examine any of the other questions raised in this writ petition.