Partly allowed

Koppula Srinivasa Reddy v. The Andhra Pradesh Lokayuktha

Andhra Pradesh HC30 Nov 2021WP/24781/2021

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This Writ Petition challenged an order by the Lokayukta restraining a Sub-Registrar from executing documents on certain lands pending a complaint. The court held that under Section 12 of the AP Lokayukta Act, the Lokayukta lacks power to issue interim or final mandates, and accordingly set aside the impugned order.

What did the court decide?

The order dated 30.3.2021 directing the Sub-Registrar not to make transactions was set aside. The petition was partly allowed with no order as to costs.

Koppula Srinivasa Reddy Vs The Andhra… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Andhra Pradesh HC (2021)

¶1

THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE C.PRAVEEN KUMAR AND THE HONOURABLE SRI JUSTICE RAVI NATH TILHARI

¶2

WRIT PETITION No.24781 2021

¶3

ORDER:- (Per Hon’ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar)

¶4

Heard Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, learned Government Pleader for Revenue for respondent Nos.2, 3, 4 and 5; and Sri Namburi Sreemannarayana, learned counsel for respondent No.6.

¶5

The present Writ Petition came to be filed under Article 226

¶6

of the Constitution of India seeking the following relief:-

¶7

“….. to issue an appropriate Writ, order or direction more particularly one in the nature of Writ of Mandamus declaring the orders, dated 30.03.2021 in Complaint No.856/2018/B2 passed by the respondent No.1 and consequential Orders in Ref.No.151/2021(H), dated 19.04.2021 issued by the respondent No.3 directing the respondent No.5 not to entertain any document for registration in respect of the land in an extent of Ac.1-00 Cents in Sy.No.1/1, Ac.4-00 cents in Sy.No.1/5, Ac.7-00 Cents in Sy.No.132, Ac.14-07 cents in Sy.No.150, Ac.14-00 cents in Sy.No.155/1, Ac.3-20 cents in Sy.Nos.220/1, Ac.5-11 Cents in 222/2, Ac.1-30 Cents in Sy.No.215/1A and Ac.2-39 ½ Cents in Sy.No.215/1B of Jangareddygudem Village Fields, Jangareddygudem Mandal, West Godavari District, apart from other extents of lands, basing on the compliant, dated 30.03.2021 given by the respondent No.6 as arbitrary, illegal, without power or jurisdiction, quite contrary to the procedure envisaged under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 and the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta Rules, 1984 and also the well established legal principles apart from being violative of the fundamental and Constitutional rights guaranteed to the petitioners under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and consequently, set aside the same and pass….”

¶8

¶9

The only ground urged by Sri V.R.Reddy Kovvuri, learned counsel for the petitioners, is that under Section 12 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short, the Act”), respondent No.1 could not have passed an order directing the Sub-Registrar not to make any transactions in respect of survey numbers referred to in the representation of the complainant, during the pendency of complaint before the Lokayukta.

¶10

The same is strongly opposed by the learned counsel for respondent No.6 stating that the said order came to be passed only with a view to protect the lands in question. He further submits that in view of the judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, the lands in question are already protected.

¶11

Sri P.Roy Reddy, learned counsel for respondent No.1, though opposed in view of the judgment of the Division Bench of the composite High Court, states that the Lokayukta may not have power to pass an interim order.

¶12

The issue involved in the present writ petition is as to whether the Lokayukta has got power to pass an interim order, pending the complaint before the said authority. It would be apt for us to refer to Section 12 of the Act, which reads as under:-

¶13

“12. Reports of Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta. - (1) If, after investigation of any allegation in respect of any action under this Act, the Lokayukta or Upa-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 or other evidence to the competent authority. (2) The competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (1) and without any further inquiry' take action on the basis of the recommendation and intimate within

¶14

¶15

three months of the date of receipt of the report, the Lokayukta or, as the case may be, the Upa-Lokayukta, the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report.

¶16

(3) Where, in a report forwarded by the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, any recommendation imposing the penalty of removal from the office of a public servant falling within sub-clause (iv) or subclause (v) of Clause (k) of Section 2 has been made, it shall be lawful for the Government without any further inquiry to take action on the basis of the said recommendation for the removal of such public servant from his office and for making him ineligible for being elected to any office specified by the Government in this behalf, notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force.

¶17

(4) If the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his findings and recommendations referred to in sub-section (1), he shall close the case under intimation to the complainant, the 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.

¶18

(5) The Lokayukta and the Upa-Lokayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the work done under this Act to the Governor.

¶19

(6) On receipt of the special report under sub-section (4) or the annual report under sub-section (5), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature.

¶20

(7) Subject to the provisions of sub-section (2) of Section 10, the Lokayukta may, at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substance of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him or by the Upa-Lokayukta, which may appear to him to be of a general, public, academic or professional interest, in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate.”

¶21

The issue is no more res integra. The same fell for consideration before the Division Bench of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Raj Kumar Bharatlal vs. Government of

¶22

¶23

Andhra Pradesh and others¹ . Dealing with Sections 7 and 12 of

¶24

the Act, the Court held in para No.5 as under:-

¶25

“From the above, it is clear that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has been invested with the power of investigation, and while doing so, as required under Section 12 of the Act, a report has to be prepared, by recording findings and recommendations, and be communicated to the competent authority. Thus, it is manifest that Hon’ble Lokayukta has no power to issue any mandate either interim or final. We therefore accept the contention raised by the learned counsel for the petitioner that the Hon’ble Lokayukta is not empowered to do what has been done by it.”

¶26

From a reading of the above judgment, it is clear that the Lokayukta has been envisaged with the power of investigation and while doing so, a report has to be prepared by recording findings and recommendations and thereafter, communicate the same to the competent authority. Hence, it is clear that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has no power to issue any mandate either interim or final.

¶27

In view of the above, the order, dated 30.3.2021, in Complaint No.856/2018/B2 passed by respondent No.1 wherein the Lokayukta directing the concerned Sub-Registrar not to make any transactions in respect of survey numbers, as mentioned in the representation of the complainant, is liable to be set aside and accordingly, to the said extent, the order impugned is set aside. It is needless to mention that the Lokayukta shall proceed with the enquiry.

¶28