Dismissed

Iliyas. M v. State of Karnataka

Karnataka HC12 Jan 2021WP/57981/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Karnataka dismissed a writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to investigate complaints under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act. Relying on a Division Bench decision, the court held that such jurisdiction is valid and dismissed the challenge.

What did the court decide?

The writ petition challenging the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta was dismissed.

Iliyas. M Vs State of Karnataka — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Karnataka HC (2021)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU

¶2

DATED THIS THE 12^TH DAY OF JANUARY, 2021

¶3

PRESENT

¶4

THE HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE JUSTICE S.SUJATHA

¶5

AND

¶6

THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.I. ARUN

¶7

WRIT PETITION NO.57981 OF 2017 (S-KSAT)

¶8

BETWEEN:

¶9

ILIYAS. M S/O IBRAHIM SAB, AGED ABOUT 54 YEARS, JUNIOR ENGINEER, PRE DIVISION, YELABURGA, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231.

¶10

...PETITIONER

¶11

(BY SRI: VIJAYA KUMAR, ADVOCATE)

¶12

AND:

¶13

STATE OF KARNATAKA REPRESENTED BY ITS PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, RURAL DEVELOPMENT AND PANCHAYATRAJ DEPARTMENT, VIKAS SOUDHA, BANGALORE-560001.

¶14

¶15

THE CHIEF EXECUTIVE OFFICER ZILLA PANCHAYAT, KOPPAL, KOPPAL DISTRICT-583231. 3. KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, M.S.BUILDING, DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR VEEDHI, BANGALORE-560001.

¶16

ADDITIONAL REGISTRAR OF ENQUIRIES - 6 KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA, M.S.BUILDING, BANGALORE-560001. ...RESPONDENTS

¶17

(BY SRI: A.C. BALARAJ, AGA FOR R1; SRI: K.G. SHANTHAPPA, ADVOCATE FOR R2; SRI: V.S. ARABATTI, ADVOCATE FOR R3, R4

¶18

VK NOT FILED IN R/O R4 )

¶19

¶20

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO CALL FOR RECORDS RELATING TO THE ORDER DATED: 8.11.2017 PASSED IN APPLICATION NO.6420/2017 VIDE ANNEX-A AND AFTER PERUSAL SET ASIDE THE SAME AND ALLOW THE APPLICATION AS PRAYED FOR.

¶21

THIS WRIT PETITION COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING IN ‘B’ GROUP THIS DAY, S.SUJATHA J ., MADE THE FOLLOWING:-

¶22

¶23

O R D E R

¶24

The petitioner has called in question the order dated 08.11.2017 passed by the Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal in Application No.6420/2017 whereby the application filed by the applicant / petitioner has been rejected in limine.

¶25

2(i) The petitioner claims that he was appointed as Junior Engineer in PWD and while he was working as Junior Engineer in Taluk Panchayat, Kustagi, Koppal district, on 15.07.2011, a complaint was filed by one Sri.Doddappa Ballutagi alleging irregularities in execution of road work from Hirremannapur to Guntamaavu at Hirremannapur Grama Panchayat under the Mahatma Gandhi National Rural Employment Guarantee Scheme, on the basis of which, respondent No.3 – Lokayukta submitted a report under section 12(3) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 to the Government opining that the applicant / petitioner has committed misconduct under Rule 3(1) of the

¶26

¶27

Karnataka Civil Services (Conduct) Rules, 1966 warranting initiation of disciplinary proceedings against him and based on the said report, the first respondent has passed the order dated 11.2.2015 entrusting inquiry to Hon’ble Upalokayukta, whereupon respondent No.4 has issued article of charges on 10.03.2015.

¶28

2(ii) Being aggrieved, the petitioner approached the

¶29

Karnataka State Administrative Tribunal by filing an Application No.6420/2017. The said application was rejected by order dated 08.11.2017.

¶30

Learned counsel for petitioner referring to the order of the Division Bench of this Court at Kalaburagi Bench in the case of Sri SHRISHALI MUCHANDI vs. THE STATE OF KARNATAKA in W.P.No.200745/2018 disposed of on 21.09.2020 , submitted that the challenge made to the competency of Lokayukta to investigate into the complaint under the National Rural Employment Guarantee Act, 2005 (“NREG Act” for short) and Scheme is held to be valid. In

¶31

¶32

view of the said decision, the challenge made to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta herein does not survive for consideration. Accordingly, keeping open the rights and contentions of the petitioner relating to the other issues, the writ petition requires to be disposed of.

¶33

Learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 and 4 would submit that the issue involved herein is squarely covered by the Co-ordinate Bench Decision of this Court referred to supra, and therefore, the writ petition deserves to be dismissed negating the contentions urged by the petitioner.

¶34

Having heard learned counsel appearing for parties and perusing the material on record, it is not in dispute that the issue involved herein inasmuch as the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to investigate the complaints filed with respect to NREG Act and Scheme is no more res integra. It has been categorically held by the Division Bench in W.P.No.200745/2018 supra that the Lokayukta

¶35

¶36

has the competency to investigate into the complaints filed under the NREG Act. We have no reasons to differ from the same and accordingly, the writ petition stands

¶37

dismissed.

¶38

No order as to costs.

¶39

Sd/JUDGE

¶40

Sd/JUDGE

¶41

Bss.

Iliyas. M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Iliyas. M v. State of Karnataka

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nishanth N R Vs Jagadish B R

Shri. C. N. Kumar Vs the Branch Manager

Rajashekhar J.K Vs Dheeraj Kumar

Sri B Sharanappa Vs the State of Karnataka

Sri Mahadevu C M Vs the Manager

Sri. Chandrashekar Vs the Oriental General Insurance Co. Ltd.