P. C. Biju Kumar v. Kerala Lok Ayukta

## **`IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM`** # **`PRESENT`** ## **`THE HONOURABLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE MR.S.MANIKUMAR`** ## **`&`** ``` THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE MURALI PURUSHOTHAMAN MONDAY, THE 6[TH] DAY OF MARCH 2023 / 15TH PHALGUNA, 1944 ``` ## **`WP(C) NO. 12755 OF 2015`** ## **`PETITIONER:`** ``` P.C.BIJU KUMAR, AGED 40 YEARS, S/O.CHANDRAN, RESIDING AT PULICKAPARAMBIL, ANANDAPURAM, THRISSUR DISTRICT.(PRESENTLY WORKING AS INSPECTOR OF POLICE, PERAMANGALAM, THRISSUR CITY). ``` ``` BY ADV SRI.C.P.UDAYABHANU ``` ## **`RESPONDENTS:`** ``` 1THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR,LEGISLATURE COMPLEX,PALAYAM,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695001. ``` ``` 2THE STATE POLICE CHIEF POLICE HEADQUARTERS,VAZHUTHACAUD,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM- 695012. ``` ``` 3THE DIRECTOR GENERAL OF PROSECUTION HIGH COURT OF KERALA,ERNAKULAM. ``` ``` BY ADVS. SMT.ANU GEORGE SRI.SUJITH MATHEW JOSE SRI.SIBY CHENAPPADY SRI. V. TEKCHAND, SR. GP SMT.RENU. D.P., SC, LOK AYUKTA ``` ``` THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 06.03.2023, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ``` **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** **2** ## **JUDGMENT** Dated this the 6[th ] day of March, 2023 ## **S.Manikumar, C.J.** In this writ petition, petitioner has sought for the following reliefs: - “(i) To call for the records leading to complaint No. 467/2015-C of the Kerala Lok Ayukta and quash the same including Exhibit P3 summons issued to the petitioner by the Kerala Lok Ayukta; - (ii) Declare that investigation by a jurisdictional police officer in a crime registered by him falls within clause (b) of the 2[nd] schedule to the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 and that the Kerala Lok Ayukta is denuded of jurisdiction to conduct a parallel enquiry in respect of the very same subject matter in terms of Section 8 (1) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act.” 2. Short facts leading to the filing of the writ petition are as under: 2.1. Petitioner, the Inspector of Police of Peramangalam Circle, Thrissur City, is the Investigating Officer in Crime No. 173/2015 of Peramangalam Police Station.. The said crime relates to murder of a security guard/office staff of ‘Shoba City' by a business man. Final report in the said case has been filed and the case has been committed to the Sessions Court, Thrissur. 2.2. Petitioner has relied on the decision in **Ramachandran Master Vs. Kerala Lok Ayukta** reported in 2006 (4) KLT 166, wherein it was held that Lok Ayukta can act on the basis of newspaper reports only if the editor or news correspondent, through **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** **3** whom the news is published, is called and asked to give a complaint as envisaged in the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act and Rules, supported by a declaration and affidavit. 2.3. Section 8(1) and Schedule 2 clause (b) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999 specifically interdicts the Kerala Lok Ayukta from taking cognizance of a complaint in respect of which action is taken, in exercise of powers to determine whether a matter shall go to a court or not. 2.4. It is submitted that ignoring the above decision of this Court and the above statutory interdiction, the Upa Lok Ayukta, by Exhibit P1 proceedings, initiated suo motu proceedings in respect of the above crime. 2.5. It is stated that without basic materials, in Exhibit P1, the Upa Lok Ayukta has come to the finding that the petitioner is guilty of misconduct, mal-administration, and that, he has abused his position as a public servant, to obtain a gain for himself and to favour the accused. 2.6. Petitioner is summoned by Exhibit P3 to produce copies of the case diary. **4** ## **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** 2.7. Petitioner has submitted before the Lok Ayukta that the respective documents have been entrusted to the Special Public Prosecutor. 2.8. Without comprehending the statements of the petitioner, Upa Lok Ayukta persuaded him to mount the witness box and made him stand therein for two hours; simultaneously calling other cases. 3. The question as to whether Lok Ayukta can initiate suo motu proceedings has been considered by the Hon’ble Division Bench of this court in **Ramachandran Master v. Kerala Lok Ayukta** (supra), and, at paragraphs Nos.18, 23 and 27, it was 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 **5** ## **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** 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 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. **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** **6** 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 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 **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** **7** 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.” 4. Following the abovesaid decision, by judgment dated 07.02.2023 in W.P.(C) Nos.27151 of 2013 and 29137 of 2013, we have set aside the orders impugned therein. The decision in **Ramachandran Master** ’s case (cited supra) squarely applies to the case on hand. Following the same, prayers **8** ## **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** sought for in the instant writ petition are granted. Impugned proceedings and order are set aside. Accordingly, writ petition is allowed. Pending interlocutory applications, if any, shall stand closed. Sd/- **S.Manikumar Chief Justice** Sd/- **Murali Purushothaman** **Judge** vpv **W.P.(C)No.12755 of 2015** **9** ## **`APPENDIX OF WP(C) 12755/2015`** ``` PETITIONER EXHIBITS ``` ``` EXT.P1TRUE COPY OF THE PROCEEDINGS OF THE UPA LOK AYUKTA NUMBERED AS COMPLAINT NO.467/2015 DATED 18/02/2015. ``` - `EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED UPA LOK AYUKTA DATED 18.02.2015.` - `EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER PASSED BY THE LEARNED UPA LOK AYUKTA DATED 18/02/2015.` - `EXT.P4 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE LEARNED UPA LOK AYUKTA DATED 09/03/2015.` - `EXT.P5 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDERS PASSED BY THE LEARNED UPA LOK AYUKTA DATED 26/03/2015.` - `EXT.P6 TRUE COPY OF THE STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER BEFORE THE UPA LOK AYUKTA DATED 16/04/2015.` //TRUE COPY// P.A. TO JUDGE