JANARDHAN SAHNI Vs. STATE OF JHARKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present writ petition has been filed for issuance of direction upon the respondent nos. 2 to 8 to act in pursuance of letter bearing memo no. 1819 dtd. 23/10/2018 (Annexure-1 to the writ petition), letter bearing memo no. 2273 dtd. 8/11/2018 (Annexure-2 to the writ petition), letter bearing memo no. 87 dtd. 20/5/2020 (Annexure-6 to the writ petition) as well as the order dtd. 18/9/2019 (Annexure-5 to the writ petition) passed by the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi in Complaint No. 01/LOK (Co-operative) 1/2019. Further prayer has been made for issuance of direction upon the concerned State respondent to forthwith lodge First Information Report against the respondent nos. 9 and 10 and to stop fishing and water tax distribution in pursuance of letter bearing memo no. 87 dtd. 20/5/2020.

(2.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the materials available on record. The petitioner claims to be an elected member of Taljhari Prakhand Matasyajivi Sahyog Samittee Limited and was raising voice against the respondent nos. 9 and 10, who happened to be the Chairman and Secretary of the said Samittee respectively and due to the said reason, they suspended his membership during pendency of the aforesaid complaint before the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi. The grievance of the petitioner raised through the present writ petition is that order dtd. 18/9/2019 passed by the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi in the aforesaid complaint case is not being acted upon. Learned counsel for the petitioner, while referring to operative part of the said order, submits that learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand, Ranchi while forwarding a copy of the order dtd. 18/9/2019 along with the copy of the complaint filed by the petitioner and the explanation submitted by one Ravindra Kumar Das - the then Assistant Registrar, Co-operative Societies, Sahebganj Circle, Sahebganj has recommended appropriate action against the said Assistant Registrar with a direction to the respondent no. 2 to inform about the action taken in that regard. It is also submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the main reason for preferring the writ petition is that the post of learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand is presently vacant and as such the petitioner is not in a position to know as to whether any action has been taken by the respondent no. 2 in pursuance of order dtd. 18/9/2019 passed in Complaint No. 01/LOK (Co-operative) 1/2019.

(3.) I have gone through the provisions of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act, 2001") particularly Sec. 12 of the same, which provides a mechanism/procedure of preparation of report in writing by the Lokayukta as well as communication thereof to the concerned public servant and the competent authority after investigation of any case pursuant to receipt of complaint involving certain grievance. Sec. 12(1) provides that if, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving a grievance has been made and the Lokayukta is satisfied that injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or any other person has been occurred, a report in writing shall be made by the Lokayukta with recommendation to the public servant and the competent authority concerned for redressal/remedy of such injustice or undue hardship within a time as specified in the report. As per Sec. 12(3) of the Act, 2001, if after investigation of any action with respect to which a complaint involving allegation has been made and the Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by a report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. Sub-sec. (4) of Sec. 12 provides that thereafter the competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-sec. (3) and intimate the Lokayukta regarding the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the said report within three months from the date of receipt of the report. Sub-sec. (5) of Sec. 12 provides that if the Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sec. (1) and sub- Sec. (3) of Sec. 12 [relevant in the present case], he shall close the said case under information to the complainant, public servant and the competent authority concerned, but where he is not so satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the complainant concerned.