Dismissed

Karnataka Lokayukta v. the Labour Commissioner

Matter Summarily – Writ Jurisdiction

Karnataka HC10 Jul 2024WP/30034/2017

Download

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court dismissed a writ petition filed by the Karnataka Lokayukta challenging the rejection of sanction for prosecution against a Labour Inspector. The court held that the Lokayukta lacks locus standi to challenge such orders, relying on precedents from the Apex Court and this High Court.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the order refusing to grant sanction.

Karnataka Lokayukta Vs the Labour Commissioner — Corruption | Karnataka HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NC: 2024:KHC:26552 WP No. 30034 of 2017

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 10^TH DAY OF JULY, 2024 BEFORE

¶4

THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE HEMANT CHANDANGOUDAR

¶5

WRIT PETITION NO.30034 OF 2017 (GM-KLA)

¶6

BETWEEN:

¶7

KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDINGS DR.B.R.AMBEDKAR ROAD BENGALURU – 560 001 REPRESENTED BY SRI.M.JAGADISH S/O SRI.M.H.NAYAK, AGE: 48 YEARS THE DEPUTY SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE

¶8

…PETITIONER

¶9

(BY SRI. VENKATESH S ARBATTI, ADVOCATE) AND:

¶10

Digitally signed by B K MAHENDRAKUMAR Location: HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA

¶11

THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER OFFICE OF THE LABOUR COMMISSIONER KARNATAKA KARMIKARA BHAVANA BANNERGHATTA ROAD BENGALURU – 560 029

¶12

SRI. R.RAVI KUMAR S/O LATE SRI.RANGASWAMY AGE: 37 YEARS OCCUPATION: LABOUR INSPECTOR UDUPI 1^ST CIRCLE OFFICE OF THE LABOUR OFFICER RAJATADRI, MANIPAL-576104 UDUPI DISTRICT

¶13

…RESPONDENTS

¶14

(BY SMT.SARITHA KULKARNI, HCGP FOR R.1; SRI.SATISH K, ADVOCATE FOR R.2)

¶15

THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA PRAYING TO QUASH THE ORDER DTD 9.11.2015 [ANENXURE-C], ORDER DTD 28.4.2016

¶16

¶17

NC: 2024:KHC:26552 WP No. 30034 of 2017

¶18

[ANNEXURE-E] AND ORDER DTD 16.12.2016 [ANNEXURE-H] PASSED BY R-1 AND ETC.

¶19

THIS PETITION, COMING ON FOR PRELIMINARY HEARING ‘B’ GROUP, THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:

¶20

ORDER

¶21

The petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta, challenges the orders dated 09.11.2015, 28.04.2016, and 16.12.2016 as per AnnexuresC, E, and H respectively, passed by respondent No.1, by which the permission to grant sanction to prosecute respondent No.2 for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'), was rejected.

¶22

The petitioner, Karnataka Lokayukta, after conducting an investigation, prepared a final report stating that respondent No.2 is guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and Sections 201 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as 'IPC').

¶23

Respondent No.1, who is the Competent Authority having power under Section 19 of the PC Act in relation to respondent No.2, rejected the petitioner's request for permission to grant sanction to prosecute under the impugned orders. Taking exception, this petition is filed.

¶24

Sri. Venkatesh S Arbatti, learned counsel representing Karnataka Lokayukta, argues that the petitioner, as an Investigating Agency, has locus standi to question the order

¶25

3 - NC: 2024:KHC:26552 WP No. 30034 of 2017

¶26

refusing to grant sanction to prosecute. He further argues that the decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court was made without reference to paragraph No. 15 of the decision of the Hon’ble High Court in the case of STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. NISHANT SAREEN . He further argues that the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 were made without reference to the charge sheet materials but on the representation submitted by respondent No. 2 and, therefore, the impugned orders passed by respondent No. 1 are not in conformity with the provisions contained in Section 19 of the PC Act.

¶27

Per contra, the learned counsel for the 2nd respondent argues that Karnataka Lokayukta is entrusted to conduct investigations into offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act and has no locus standi to challenge the order passed by the Competent Authority refusing to grant sanction to prosecute. In support, he relies on following decisions of the Co-ordinate Bench:

¶28

i) W.P. No. 48249/2018 (Karnataka Lokayukta Police

¶29

vs. State and others).

¶30

ii) Criminal Petition No. 809/2019 c/w Writ Petition No. 58257/2018.

¶31

iii) In W.P. No. 5248/2020 (The State of Karnataka vs. The State of Karnataka and another).

¶32

He further argues that Karnataka Lokayukta did not produce any new materials before the Competent Authority to grant

¶33

¶34

NC: 2024:KHC:26552 WP No. 30034 of 2017

¶35

sanction to prosecute and, therefore, the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 do not warrant any interference.

¶36

The arguments of the learned counsel for the parties have been duly examined.

¶37

It is undisputed that Karnataka Lokayukta was entrusted with the power to conduct investigations for offences punishable under the provisions of the PC Act by virtue of the Notification issued by the Government of Karnataka and by establishing a police station under the provisions of Section 2(S) of the Criminal Procedure Code.

¶38

The issue whether Karnataka Lokayukta can claim to be an aggrieved person by the Act of the State declining to grant sanction to prosecute respondent No. 2 fell for consideration before the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in W.P. No. 48249/2018 and this Court, after referring to the decision of the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF PUNJAB AND ANOTHER V. MOHAMMED IQBAL BHATTI and HARYANA FINANCIAL CORPORATION V. JAGADAMBA OIL MILLS , held that Karnataka Lokayukta is not aggrieved by the refusal of sanction and cannot maintain a writ petition.

¶39

The said decision was followed by the Co-ordinate Bench in Criminal Petition No. 809/2019 c/w Writ Petition No. 58257/2018 and Writ Petition No. 5248/2020.

¶40

¶41

NC: 2024:KHC:26552 WP No. 30034 of 2017

¶42

The decision of the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court is the subject matter of Writ Appeal No. 255/2022. However, the Division Bench of this Court has not stayed the operation of the orders passed by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court.

¶43

The power conferred on the Investigating Agency to investigate the offences punishable under the PC Act does not necessarily include the locus standi to challenge an order that refuses to grant sanction for prosecution by the Investigating Agency i.e. Lokayuktha.

¶44

The Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH VS. NISHANT SAREEN (supra) at paragraph No. 15 has observed that "By way of footnote, we may observe that the Investigating Agency might have had a legitimate grievance about the order refusing to grant sanction, and if that were so and no fresh materials were necessary, it ought to have challenged the order of the sanctioning authority but that was not done." Except for those observations, the Hon’ble Apex Court has not adjudicated on the right of the Investigating Agency therein with regard to the locus standi to challenge the order refusing to grant sanction.

¶45

The validity of the impugned order passed by respondent No. 1 refusing to grant sanction to prosecute is left open. The petition is dismissed on the ground that the petitioner has no locus standi to question the order refusing to grant sanction.

¶46

¶47

NC: 2024:KHC:26552 WP No. 30034 of 2017

¶48

Pending applications, if any, are also dismissed.

¶49

Sd/JUDGE

¶50

NBM

Karnataka Lokayukta v. the Labour Commissioner

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Karnataka Lokayukta v. the Labour Commissioner

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

Allwin Scientifics Vs State of Karnataka

Nagaraju Vs the Assistant Commissioner

Smt. B S Prabavathi Vs the State of Karnataka

Mrs. Jaya Gupta Vs Recovery Officer-I

Smt Shalini Vs State of Karnataka by Secretary

Sri Narayana Vs the State of Karnataka