Federal House Construction Co-Operative Society Ltd. v. State of Kerala; Secretary, Federal Bank Officers Association (FBOA Centre), Aluva v. State of Kerala (WP(C) Nos. 27151/2013 & 29137/2013)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN** **TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 18TH MAGHA, 1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 27151 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER/:** THE FEDERAL HOUSE CONSTRUCTION CO-OPERATIVE SOCIETY LTD. E-962, FEDERAL GARDENS, PULINCHODE, ALUVA - 683 101, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY GEORGE P.MATHAI, AGED 62 YEARS, S/O.MATHAI. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.JOY SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY ## **RESPONDENTS:** 1 STATE OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY (CO-OPERATIVE DEPARTMENT), SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM - 695 001. 2 THE REGISTRAR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM - 695 033. BY ADVS. SRI.J.HARIKUMAR – R2 SMT.RENU. D.P., SC, LOK AYUKTA SRI. TEK CHAND V. SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2023, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No 29137/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ## **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 2** ## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT** ## **THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR** ## **&** **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN TUESDAY, THE 7[TH] DAY OF FEBRUARY 2023 / 18TH MAGHA,** ## **1944** ## **WP(C) NO. 29137 OF 2013** ## **PETITIONER:** THE SECRETARY, FEDERAL BANK OFFICER'S ASSOCIATION F.B.O. A CENTRE, ALUVA-683101. BY ADVS. SRI.T.A.JOY SRI.NIXON PAUL SRI.PRAVEEN K. JOY ## **RESPONDENTS:** - 1 STATE OF KERALA REP. BY SECRETARY (LABOUR DEPARTMENT,) SECRETARIAT, TRIVANDRUM-695001. - 2 THE REGISTRAR AND COMPETENT AUTHORITY, KERALA LOK AYUKTA, LEGISLATURE COMPLEX, VIKAS BHAVAN.P.O., THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695033. R2 BY SRI. J.HARIKUMAR SRI. TEK CHAND. V. - SENIOR GOVERNMENT PLEADER. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 07.02.2023, ALONG WITH W.P.(C) No. 27151/2013, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 3** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 7[th] day of February, 2023 ## **S.MANIKUMAR, CJ.** Short facts leading to the filing of these writ petitions are as follows:- The petitioner in W.P.(C) No.27151/2013 is a Co-operative Society. By Ext.P2 dated 13.06.2013, the petitioner was directed to forward the list of public servants from 1999 onwards viz., President, Secretary, Treasurer and any other office bearer with their term of office and address (official and residential) on or before 29.06.2013 along with their respective statements of assets and liabilities in the prescribed proforma. Ext.P4 is the consequential proceedings issued in this regard. Similar, is the facts in W.P.(C) No.29137/2013. Therefore, both the writ petitions are taken up together and disposed of by this common judgment. 2. The question as to whether Kerala Lok Ayukta has powers to initiate suo motu proceedings, has been ## **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 4** considered by a Hon'ble Division Bench of this Court in **Ramachandran Master v. Kerala Lok Ayukta** reported in 2006 (4) KLT 166 wherein, the Division Bench in paragraph Nos. 18, 23 and 27 ordered thus:- “18. The cumulative reading of the provisions of the Act and Rules as referred to above would clearly manifest that the Lok Ayukta is the person appointed under the Act to conduct investigations and inquiries, has necessarily to act under the provisions of the Act. When the Lok Ayukta may act on a complaint received by him or Upa-Lok Ayukta, the complaint has to be such which is under the Act and sub-s.(2) of S.9 dealing with provisions related to complaints and investigations clearly mentions that such a complaint has to be in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed.The word ‘prescribed’ has been defined in clause (n) of S.2 to mean prescribed by Rules made under the Act. The Government, by virtue of powers conferred upon it under S.23 of the Act, has prescribed the form and manner in which a complaint has to be made. The same is as per the Schedule reproduced above. The complaint which may be presented to the Lok Ayukta under section has to be, as far as practicable, in accordance with the form set out in the Schedule. It is further to be accompanied by an affidavit and further that a defective complaint, if not cured, has to be rejected.Based on the provisions of the Act and Rules as produced above, this Court is in a position to return a firm finding that the Lok Ayukta can enter upon an investigation only on a written complaint and further that such a complaint, as far as practicable,has to be as provided under the Schedule, which not only contains a declaration to the effect as mentioned above, but has also to be supported by an affidavit. A complaint which may not comply with the requirements of the Act and Rules cannot be ## **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 5** entertained and thus has to be rejected, even though by virtue of the proviso appended to S.9 an opportunity to cure the defects has to be given to the complainant. If that be so, it has to be held further that the Lok Ayukta would have no power to conduct any investigation with respect to any matter without a complaint as envisaged under the rules. The Lok Ayukta would, thus, have no suo motu powers to conduct any investigation. It has no jurisdiction to investigate grievance sought to be ventilated or projected in anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or a letter of complaint as well. We may mention that during the course of arguments the contention raised by the learned counsel representing the petitioners that the provisions contained in the Act and Rules would not confer any suo motu power on the Lok Ayukta to proceed to investigate was not much disputed, even though what was sought to be projected by the learned counsel representing the Lok Ayukta was that the procedural wrangles cannot be permitted to thwart the object of the legislation which is to eradicate corruption and mal administration in public life. 23. This Court is of the considered opinion that whereas it is indeed the legislative intent in enacting the Act of 1999 to eradicate corruption as also mal administration in public life, the object of the Act is also that the faith of the people in the administration is not lost and innocent politicians or bureaucrats are not subjected to humiliation and harassment. The Lok Ayukta, in our considered view, would have no jurisdiction to enter into inquiry or investigation when it may proceed on the basis of the complaint received from any person unless the complaint is in the form and manner as prescribed in the Rules fully detailed above. No doubt, a defective complaint can be rejected if it is not cured after giving the complainant a chance to do so, but, if the same is not either in the prescribed form with the declaration as mentioned above and further supported by an affidavit or if not cured as mentioned above, there would be no jurisdiction with the Lok Ayukta to proceed in the matter. If this ## **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 6** safeguard is not strictly adhered to, the forum of Lok Ayukta may become a store house of unnecessary, baseless, false and frivolous litigations. There is no dearth of persons actuated because of enmity, jealousy and other human evil propensities in lodging false complaints. It would be travesty of justice if on the basis of such complaints innocent office holders are maligned and their reputation damaged beyond redemption. 27. In view of the discussion as made above, we hold that the Lok Ayukta exercising powers under the Act of 1999 has no suo motu powers to conduct any investigation with regard to matters complained of and further that no inquiry or investigation can be entered by the Lok Ayukta on an anonymous or pseudonymous letters, newspaper reports or even a letter of complaint which may be received without complying with the necessary procedure as enshrined under the various provisions of the Act and Rules of 1999. While holding so, we may, however, observe that in the event the letter containing allegations is not as envisaged under the Act, the Lok Ayukta may ask the complainant, if the complaint is not anonymous or pseudonymous but by a known person, to cure the defects or support the contents of his complaint in the manner mentioned in the format of the Rules reproduced above and if the defects may be cured so as to constitute a ‘complaint’ within the meaning of the Act and Rules, the Lok Ayukta would have jurisdiction to proceed with the matter. He may also proceed on the basis of newspaper reports if the Editor or the News Correspondent through whom the news has been published, is called and asked to give complaint as envisaged in the Rules supported by a declaration and affidavit. In view of our finding that the Lok Ayukta has no power to inquire or investigate or to commence proceedings suo motu or on the basis of any anonymous or pseudonymous letters or complaints which are not as per format and are not even cured after giving a chance to do so, the proceedings before the Lok Ayukta on the basis of newspaper reports and letter of complaint, are quashed.” ## **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 7** 3. On the facts and circumstances of the cases, it could be deduced that without complaint filed by anybody, Lok Ayukta ought not have issued Exts.P2 and P4 orders and in such circumstances, the decision cited (supra) squarely applies to the cases on hand. Following the same, Exts.P2 and P4 orders are set aside. Accordingly, these writ petitions are allowed. Sd/- **S.MANIKUMAR CHIEF JUSTICE** Sd/- **MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN JUDGE** spc/ **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 8** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 27151/2013** PETITIONER EXHIBITS. EXHIBIT P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE. EXHIBIT P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13.06.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXHIBIT P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 28.06.2013. EXHIBIT P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 04.09.2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. ET.R2(A) TRUE COPY OF APPLICATION DT.7.5.2013 BY SRI. P.L.JACOB. **WP(C) 27151 & 29137 of 2013 9** ## **APPENDIX OF WP(C) 29137/2013** PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS EXT.P1. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REGISTRATION CERTIFICATE DATED 26-779. EXT.P2. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 13-6-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT. EXT.P3. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE REPLY DATED 25-6-2013. EXT.P4. TRUE PHOTOCOPY OF THE LETTER DATED 30-9-2013 OF THE 2ND RESPONDENT.