Sangeetam Venkata Reddy vs Govt. of A.P. and Others

P. Venkatarama Reddi, J.—The petitioner seeks a writ to declare G.O. Rt.No. 3776 (General Administration-SC.E. Department), dated 20-l0-987 issued by the first respondent by order of H.E. the Governor and the report dated 12-4-1988 submitted by the 3rd respondent pursuant thereto, as illegal and without jurisdiction and to set aside the same. By the said G.O., the Governor in exercise of powers under Sub-section (3) of Section 18 of Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta Act, 1983 (hereinafter referred to as the Act), required the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta to investigate the allegations mentioned therein against the public servants named therein. The definition of public servant includes a Minister who is a member of Council of Ministers of the State of Andhra Pradesh and a Member of State Legislature either present or past. At the relevant point of time when the impugned order was passed, the petitioner was a Member of the State Legislature. Earlier he was a Minister for Mines etc. Insofar as the petitioner is concerned, the allegation which is referred to for investigation by Hon''ble Lok Ayukta is as follows:

"Whether the allegation that Sri Sangeetam Venkata Reddy, Ex-Minister received favour from M/s. Deccan Construction Co., the contractors for the A.P. Mining Corporation who spent a sum of Rs. 42,591.94 on the marriage of his daughter at Tirupati during 1-5-1982 to 7-5-1982, is true?"

The relevant documents and list of witnesses was appended to the G.O. The G.O. issued by the G.A.D. was preceded by a communication addressed by H.E. the Governor of A.P. to the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta calling upon the Lok Ayukta to investigate the allegation abovementioned. Section 18(3) of the Act is as follows:

"18 (3). The Governor may, by order in writing and subject to such conditions and limitations as may be specified therein, require the Lok Ayukta to investigate any action (being action in respect of which a complaint maybe made under this Act, to the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta) and notwithstanding anything in this Act the Lok Ayukta shall comply with such order."

Thus, the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta became seized of the matter on a reference made by the H.E. the Governor u/s 18(3) of the Act. Reference was registered as Complaint No. 3419 of 1987. The Hon''ble Lok Ayukta probed into the allegation by calling for the relevant records, examining the witnesses and marking the documents. The petitioner was given an opportunity to participate in the proceedings to cross-examine the witnesses and to adduce the evidence. The petitioner was represented by a Legal Practitioner. The concluding part of the finding of the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta is as follows:

"Therefore, my finding on the allegation referred to me by the Governor is that Sri Sangeetam Venkat Reddy, former Minister for Mines did receive favour from M/s. Deccan Construction Company, the contractors for the A.P. Mining Corporation for the marriage of his daughter at Tirumala during 1-5-1982 to 7-5-1982. But, it is not proved in what sum of money he received the benefit, because I am keeping out of consideration the contents of the letter and the accounts."

Answering the reference accordingly, the report dated 12-4-1988 was sent to the Government. On 26-10-1988 the present writ petition was filed. The learned single Judge of this Court granted interim suspension and the said interim order was made absolute on 3-2-1989 and the writ petition was directed to be posted for hearing on 20-3-1989. Unfortunately, the writ petition has seen the light of the day ten years thereafter. The interim order continues to be in force till to-day. It does not appear that any of the Counsel had taken steps to request the Registry to post the case as per the direction of the Court. We can only express our anguish that the proceedings pursuant to Lok Ayukta''s report remain stayed for a decade, thereby frustrating the lofty objectives of the Act. In a matter of this nature, the Court, if it is inclined to grant stay, must be in a position to dispose of the case at the earliest instead of allowing it to remain in cold storage for years together. Perhaps, staying the proceedings for a limited period and then taking up final hearing would have been a more appropriate and expedient course. But except lamenting on the delay and making these remarks which might pave the way for remedial measures to avoid such delays in future we can do nothing more at this stage.

Coining to the contentions advanced by the learned Counsel for the petitioner, the main contention is that the allegation against the petitioner does not fall within the definition of ''action'' and therefore, the order of H.E. the Governor and the investigation made by the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta is without jurisdiction and therefore null and void. The ''action'' defined by Section 2(a) is as follows:

"(a) ''Action'' means action taken by a public servant in the discharge of his functions as such public servant, by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission in connection with or arising out of such action, and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordingly."

It is the contention of the petitioner that the act attributed to him was not in the discharge of his functions as public servant by way of decision, recommendation etc. The allegation contained in the impugned order of reference does not spell out anything in the nature of commission or omission in relation to discharge of his official functions as Minister of Mines. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that certain marriage expenses were met by a party who had dealings with A.P. Mining Corporation, there is no allegation that any favour was shown to the said party or that the petitioner had even occasion to deal with any of the matters concerning the party- Deccan Construction Company. On merits, it is contended that there is no evidence worth mentioning to show that Deccan Construction Co , made the payment towards the expenses chargeable to the petitioner for accommodation etc., in Karnataka State Charities Building. He further submits is that the evidence of P.W.3, Balakrishnan shows that he did not act on the instructions of the petitioner in making arrangements at Tirumala Hills and that it was only at the instance of one Sarveswar Rao, he made certain arrangements after receiving money from him. Further, it is pointed out that the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta could not definitely conclude as to the extent of monetary benefit which the petitioner allegedly received from the said Company''s representative.

As already noted, the main contention of the petitioner is that the allegation does not amount to ''action'' within the meaning of Section 2(a) which is the foundation for investigation under the Act. This point of jurisdiction was also raised before the Lok Ayukta. The Hon''ble Lok Aykta rejected this contention holding that there was an ''action'' on the part of the petitioner within the meaning of Section 2(a) which called for investigation. We can only comment that this contention is not without force and deserves serious consideration by the Governor. As regards the findings on merits, we would like to say that the petitioner has a case to contest. In other words, whether the findings are supported by the evidence on record and whether the evidence unerringly indicates the hand of the petitioner in receiving certain amounts from Deccan Construction Co., for doing any favour while he was a Minister, are debatable questions.

The Hon''ble Lok Ayukta having already submitted the report to the Government/Governor after due enquiry in which the petitioner was afforded an opportunity, it would be wholly inappropriate for this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 226 to decide the questions raised instead of allowing the Governor to take a decision. If the petitioner felt that the Governor acted ultra vires the provisions of the Act in calling for a report from Lok Ayukta u/s 18 and if Lok Ayukta lacked competence to probe into the matter, the proper stage for the petitioner to approach this Court was at the initial stage itself. Nothing prevented the petitioner from filing a writ of Prohibition on the ground that the reference itself was incompetent and ultra vires. Right or wrong, the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta expressed the view that he had jurisdiction to enquire into the matter inasmuch as the alleged receipt of monetary benefit from M/s. Deccan Construction Co., falls within the definition of ''action'' under the Act. Whether or not the view of the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta is correct and whether the evidence on record proves the charge and whether the ingredients of Section 2(a) are satisfied - all these and allied questions should be left to be decided by the Governor inasmuch as the report has already been submitted. H.E. the Governor will have to arrive at the final decision not only on consideration of the report of the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta, but also on a consideration of the objections/comments filed by the petitioner. Principles of natural justice require that the petitioner should be given an opportunity to comment on the investigation report and H.E. the Governor should necessarily take into account the objections that may be filed by the petitioner apart from other material on record. The petitioner may file his comments to the Governor within one month from today and the same shall be forwarded by the Government to H.E. the Governor. The interim order is vacated.

Before closing the case, we may mention that although the petitioner imputed mala fides to the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta, the learned Counsel for the petitioner stated in the course of hearing that the allegations of mala fides are not being pressed and the said allegation shall be treated as withdrawn in view of the counter-affidavit filed by the Hon''ble Lok Ayukta.

The writ petition is disposed of with the above observations. No costs.