This single-paragraph order dismisses a writ petition challenging a Lokayukta decision to close a complaint pending another civil suit. The court holds the order is correct and warrants no interference.
The writ petition was dismissed with no interim relief granted.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND
THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
Writ Petition No.20016 of 2015
DATED:03.07.2015
Between: Akula Balakrishna Sridhar, Hyderabad.
… Petitioner
And
The Institution of Lokayukta & Upa Lokayukta, Hyderabad and others.
….Respondents
HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE DILIP B. BHOSALE AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE S.V. BHATT
Writ Petition No.20016 of 2015
PC: (Per the Hon’ble the Acting Chief Justice Dilip B. Bhosale)
Heard learned counsel for the petitioner.
This writ petition challenges the order dated 27.12.2014, passed by respondent No.1-Lokayukta. The impugned order reads thus:
“Having perused the complaint allegations already Civil Suit in O.S. No.925/13 is pending for the subject matter property and obtained an interim orders by the Complainant in the said Suit. This Institution cannot sit either Appellate Authority or Revisional Authority over the Orders of the Civil Court. Therefore, this Institution cannot proceed further. As such, the complaint can be closed. Accordingly, closed.”
It is not in dispute that the suit is still pending and the interim order passed in favour of the petitioner is operating. Over and above this, learned Government Pleader for Prohibition & Excise, appearing for respondent Nos. 2 to 4, invited our attention to another writ petition filed by the petitioner, bearing Writ Petition No. 30927 of 2014, seeking cancellation of the licence/permission granted in favour of one Chinni Raj Praveen, to sell IMFL/FL liquor. In the present writ petition, the petitioner seeks action against respondent No.4, for issuing the very same licence, which is the subject matter of earlier writ petition.
In this backdrop, the order passed by the Lokayukta cannot
be faulted and warrants no interference by this Court in writ jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Hence, the writ petition is dismissed.
DILIP B. BHOSALE, ACJ
_________________ S.V. BHATT, J 3rd July, 2015 Pnb
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the High Court should interfere with the Lokayukta's order closing the complaint due to pendency of a civil suit.
Akula Balakrishna Sridhar
The Institution of Lokayukta & Upa Lokayukta
Dilip B. Bhosale
S. V. Bhatt
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
