Sakthan N. v. Government of Kerala and Others (W.P.C. No. 31762 of 2006)

## **IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM** ## **PRESENT:** ## **THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE B.P.RAY** **WEDNESDAY, THE 6TH DAY OF FEBRUARY 2013/17TH MAGHA 1934** ## **WP(C).No. 31762 of 2006 (F)** ## **--------------------------** ## **PETITIONER(S):** - **--------------------------** **SAKTHAN. N.,S/O.THE LATE NALLATHAMPY, AGED 56 YEARS (FORMER MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT), RESIDING AT `REVATHY', POOJAPPURA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **BY SRI.O.V.RADHAKRISHNAN,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADV. SRI.R.T.PRADEEP** ## **RESPONDENT(S):COMPLAINANT/RESPONDENTS:** **--------------------------------------------------------------------------** **1. K.K. DIVAKARAN,GENERAL SECRETARY, KSRTC EMPLOYEES ASSOCIATION, DESABHIMANI ROAD, MANJALIKULAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, RESIDING AT KUTHULLY, THONDIKKULAM, PALAKKAD-4.** **2. BABU RAJENDRA NAIR, FORMER ADDITIONAL PRIVATE SECRETARY TO MINISTER FOR TRANSPORT (RETIRED), RESIDING AT KRISHNA VILASAM, ARALUMMOODU, NEYYATTINKARA.** **3. CHAIRMAN AND MANAGING DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **4. EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR, KSRTC, TRANSPORT BHAVAN, FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **5. PRINCIPAL SECRETARY, TRANSPORT DEPARTMENT, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **6. GOVERNMENT OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS CHIEF SECRETARY, SECRETARIAT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **..2/-** **Kss** **...2.....** ## **WPC.NO.31762/2006 F** ## **7. KERALA LOKAYUKTHA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, ASSEMBLY COMPEX, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM.** **R1 BY SRI.C.P.SUDHAKARA PRASAD,SENIOR ADVOCATE BY ADVS. SRI.ELVIN PETER P.J. SRI.S.RAMESH SRI.NAVEEN.T R2 BY ADV. SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM R3 & R4 BY ADV. SRI.BABU JOSEPH KURUVATHAZHA,SC,KSRTC SRI.JOHNSON P.JOHN, SC, KSRTC R5 & R6 BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.THOMAS JOHN AMBOOKEN BY SRI.TOM K.THOMAS, SPL.GOVERNMENT PLEADER TO A.G.** **THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 17/08/2012, THE COURT ON 06/02/2013 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:** **Kss** ## **WPC.NO.31762/2006 F** ## **APPENDIX** ## **PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS:** - **P1: COPY OF THE COMPLAINT NO.324 OF 2006 FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT BEFORE THE KERALA LOKAYUKTHA.** - **P2: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE PETITIONER HEREIN (1ST RESPONDENT IN THE COMPLAINT) ALONG WITH EXTS. R-1(A) TO (C)** - **P3: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT.** - **P4: COPY OF THE ADDITIONAL COUNTER STATEMENT FILED BY THE PETITIONER.** - **P5: COPY OF THE REPLY STATEMENT OF THE 3RD RESPONDENT.** - **P6: COPY OF THE COUNTER AFFIDAVIT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT.** - **P7: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF PW - 1.** - **P8: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION PW-6.** - **P9: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF THE PETITIONER RW - 1.** - **P10: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF RW - 3.** - **P11: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF RW 4.** - **P12: COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF R - 5.** - **P13: COPY OF THE REPORT DTD. 17/11/2006 IN COMPLAINT NO.324 OF 2006 OF THE 7TH RESPONDENT.** - **P14: COPY OF I.A.NO.508/2011 IN COMPLAINT NO.326/2006 DTD. 25/02/2011 BEFORE LOK AYUKTA.** - **P15: COPY OF NOTICE DTD. 18/03/2011 BY KERALA LOK AYUKTA.** **..2/-** **Kss** **...2....** ## **WPC.NO.31762/2006 F** **RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS:** **R1(A): COPY OF THE DEPOSITION OF R2, SRI.BABU RAJENDRAN NAIR.** **R1(B): ENGLISH TRANSLATION OF EXT.R1(A).** **R1(C): COPY OF THE AFFIDAVIT IN LIEU OF CHIEF EXAMINATION OF SRI.BABURAJENDRAN NAIR, RW2.** **R5(A): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 23/02/2007.** **R5(B): COPY OF LETTER NO.LS1/32300/06/HC DTD. 05/10/2010.** **R5(C): COPY OF REPORT DTD. 28/03/2011. R5(D): COPY OF LETTER DTD. 07/04/2011.** **/TRUE COPY/** **P.S.TO JUDGE** **Kss** ## **B.P. Ray, J.** ==================================== W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 ==================================== Dated this the 6[th] day of February, 2013. ## **JUDGMENT** 1. This writ petition has been filed for quashing Ext.P13 report passed under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as “the Act”. The petitioner was the Minister for Transport of the Government of Kerala from 5.9.2004 to 12.5.2006. The first respondent filed a complaint under Section 9 of the Act seeking an investigation into the allegations made in the complaint and for a declaration that the petitioner, being a public servant, shall not hold the post held by him and to make a report to the competent authority under Section 12(3) of the Act. Out of several allegations, the two allegations in Ext.P1 complaint have ended in findings against the petitioner which are as follows: “i) The 2[nd] respondent who was then additional private secretary of Minister of Transport forwarded a list of drivers and conductors and their preferred place of transfer to the Corporation. The 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents who are Chairman cum Managing Director and Executive Director of KSRTC implicitly implemented the list -:2:- ## W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 forwarded by effecting transfers to those drivers and conductors to their place of choice in terms of list forwarded by 2[nd] respondent under the implied direction of petitioner. The said act of 2[nd] respondent under the implied direction of 1[st] respondent amount to interference on the administration of KSRTC which is beyond the power of control envisaged on Government under the Kerala Road Transport Act. ii) M/s.Anickal Rubbers which is a supplier of tread rubber to KSRTC obtained an award from Industrial Facilitation Council for an amount of `15,84,234/- with interest which is due from KSRTC for the supply made. The petitioner directed to release 25% of the award amount which would come to `5.4 lakhs for the purpose of remittance by the supplier to avert a revenue recovery proceedings against him. The said action of petitioner to release the amount without taking recourse to the legal remedies available against the award is also frowned in the complaint.” 2. The allegations in the complaint which culminated in findings against the petitioner are that the second respondent who was the then Additional Private Secretary to Minister for Transport (retired) forwarded a list of drivers and conductors and their preferred places of transfer to the Corporation which was complied with by 3[rd] and 4[th] respondents. The said act of the second respondent under the implied direction of the first respondent tantamount to interference in the administration of the KSRTC which is beyond the power of W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:3:- control envisaged on Government under the Kerala Road Transport Act. The second allegation was that M/s.Anickal Rubbers which was a supplier of tread rubber to KSRTC obtained an award from Industry Facilitation Council for an amount of `15,84,234/- with interest which was due from KSRTC for the supply made and on the basis of the direction of the petitioner, 25% of the award amount which would come to `5.4 lakhs was released for the purpose of paying off to avert the revenue recovery proceedings against the supplier without taking recourse to the legal remedies available against the award. 3. Petitioner denied the allegations by filing counter before the Lok Ayukta. The Lok Ayukta after investigation made Ext.P13 report finding that the aforesaid allegations have been substantiated by the complainant. In the report, no recommendation was made by the Lok Ayukta as required under Section 12(3) of the Act. The said report was forwarded to the Governor. 4. Learned senior counsel Sri.O.V.Radhakrishnan appearing for the W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:4:- petitioner assailed the finding in Ext.P13 by contending that the findings recorded against the petitioner were not based on legal evidence and the Lok Ayukta has misdirected in both point of law and facts in finding that the conduct of the office of the petitioner in forwarding Ext,P1 relating to transfer of drivers and conductors was contrary to the provisions contained in KSRTC Act. Learned counsel for the petitioner further submitted that the office of the Minister had only forwarded the representation from the employees of the KSRTC seeking transfer to places of their choice. No specific direction was issued instructing KSRTC to give transfer and posting to places of the choice of the employees. No driver or conductor in KSRTC was affected by the alleged so-called direction of the petitioner or his additional private secretary. Therefore, there is no impediment in giving transfer to a driver or conductor according to their choice or affecting the interest of the KSRTC. He further submitted that the number of vacancies of drivers and conductors in KSRTC would come to 10,000 and the regular staff will come to 6000 each. Therefore, the Lok Ayukta is wholly without jurisdiction W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:5:- to consider the legality of the transfer and posting of staff of KSRTC in the wake of Ext.R1(a) judgment of this Court by which the position is res integra that in the wake of Section 8(1)(a) of the Act action taken in respect of appointment, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation or other matters relating to conditions of public servants as enumerated in Clause (d) of 2[nd] schedule, there is total exclusion of the jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta. So, the finding against the petitioner in respect of transfer of drivers and conductors is wholly without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. 5. The finding entered by Lok Ayukta regarding the direction to pay `5.4 lakhs to Anikkal Rubber even before expiry of time fixed by law for challenging the award passed by IFA against the Corporation is also unsustainable. Under Section 7 of the Interest on Delayed Payments to Small Scale and Ancillary Industrial Undertakings Act, 1993 no appeal against any award shall be entertained by any court or other authority unless the appellant has deposited 75% of the W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:6:- amount in terms of the decree or as the case may be in the manner directed by such court or as the case may be such authority. Therefore unless there is scope for filing appeal, it would not be advisable to prefer appeal by depositing 75% of the amount payable under the decree. The petitioner issued direction to pay hardly 1/4[th] of the amount payable to Anickal Rubbers after obtaining the legal opinion of the standing counsel and after satisfying that no purpose would be served by preferring appeal except to delay the payment which would burden the KSRTC by paying the interest awarded. The Apex Court has given a word of caution to the litigation spree of the state, which is reported in Aluminium Corporation of India v. Union of India (A.I.R. 1975 S.C. 2277) “Litigation by the State means laying out public resources in a country of much poverty and scarce resources and only if the demanding justice of a case calls for it should an appeal otherwise of inconsequence to be carried to the highest court”. 6. The petitioner balanced the interest of KSRTC as well as that of the supplier and acted as a responsible and reasonable person who would W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:7:- act in the given circumstances. He directed only to pay 25% of the amount to rescue the supplier from revenue recovery proceedings and thereby secured the paramount interest of KSRTC. It is pertinent to submit that the challenge posed against the award was repelled by the learned single Judge as well as by the Division Bench and the KSRTC paid the entire balance amount due under the award. The payment made on the direction of the petitioner could at least eschew interest and thereby benefited KSRTC. 7. The complaint is intrinsically defective and not in conformity with the prescribed form. Section 9(2) mandates that every complaint shall be made in such form and in such manner as may be prescribed and shall be supported by an affidavit. In Ext.P1 complaint the allegation made in paragraph 5 is bald in nature with no specific allegation made therein. Allegations made in pages 4 to 10 have not been affirmed and are not supported by an affidavit as required under Section 9(2) of the Act. Rule 3 of the Kerala Lok Ayukta (Form and Manner of Complaint) Rules, 1999 also mandates that every complaint shall, as far as practicable be, in accordance with the forms W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:8:- set out in the schedule. Rule 5 directs that every complaint shall be supported by an affidavit by the complainant as provided in sub section 2 of Section 9. Rule 9 mandates that a complaint which does not comply with any of the requirement of the rules shall not be entertained. The Lok Ayukta acted against the statutory prescription contained in the rules and the provisions made in the Act while entertaining the complaint which does not satisfy the requirement of law. Ext.P13 report is liable to be quashed so far it relates to the petitioner. 8. It is further contended that the payment to Anickal Rubbers was directed to be made by the petitioner after obtaining legal opinion from the standing counsel of the Corporation that there was no scope for filing the appeal. The direction was given to release 25% of the award amount on the representation of supplier that he and his family consisting of two daughters would be thrown to street if the revenue recovery proceedings against his house is being proceeded with to recover an amount of Rs.5 lakhs. The supplier made a fervent plea to release a portion of the award amount to pay off the amount due W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:9:- under revenue recovery proceedings to salvage his house. The total amount due on the award is 21,77,936/-along with interest and the direction is only to pay 25% of the amount which hardly comes to Rs.5.4 lakhs. A balanced decision is taken to protect the interest of KSRTC and to redress the grievance of the supplier. KSRTC challenged the award of Council before this Court by filing a writ petition and writ appeal which were dismissed in limine as per Ext.R3(h) and Ext.R3(i) judgments. KSRTC later paid the entire amount due on the award with interest consequent on the dismissal of writ petition and writ appeal by this Court and could at least save the interest of KSRTC on the amount directed to be paid by the petitioner as an interim relief. 9. Senior counsel Sri.C.P.Sudhakara Prasad submitted that the petitioner and the second respondent admitted in their pleadings and the depositions given before the Lok Ayukta that the second respondent signed lists of persons to be transferred, Exts.P1(a), P1(b) and P1(c) as directed by the petitioner. The Lok Ayukta in Ext.P13 report under Section 12(3) of the Lok Ayukta Act dealt with the W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:10:- matter of transfer in paragraphs 11, 12, 13, 14 and 15 of the report and came to the conclusion that the attempt made by the respondents in their statements of defence and the depositions before the Lok Ayukta categorically establish the fact that at the instance of the Transport Minister, his Additional Private Secretary, 2[nd] respondent and Assistant Private Secretary, P.W.2, issued specific directions to the Corporation to transfer members of the staff to different places. Authorities of the Corporation implemented those directions. This interference on the part of the Minister and his personal staff were contrary to the provisions contained in the Transport Corporation Act and amounted to maladministration. The above finding on the basis of the sufficient materials dealt with by the Lok Ayukta does not call for interference on the basis of the law settled by the decisions of this Court. This Court in the decision in Director, Economics & Statistics v. Subramania Pillai reported in (2007 (3) KLT 366) in paragraph 3 HELD as follows: “In so far as the findings of facts are concerned, the Lok Ayukta adverted to and considered the materials on record. The quality of office of the Lok Ayukta and the nature of W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:11:- authority conferred do not call for a judicial review at the hands of the writ court, at any rate, as if it is sitting in appeal, on the findings of facts by the Lok Ayukta. May be that, in exceptionally exceptional cases of total perversity, this Court may step in, but, I find no such, on facts in this case.” 10.Again in the decision of this Court in Thankayyan v. State of Kerala reported in (2012 (3) KLT 163) at Page 175 regarding the evidence required in sending a report under Section 12(3) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act it is observed as follows: “.... The primary object of the Kerala Lok Ayukta is to act as an Ombudsman to cleanse the administration wherever maladministration is detected. It is not an adversarial process. It is a process of finding out the truth. It is also not intended for prosecuting anybody like in criminal case. The duty of the Lok Ayukta is to collect all evidence by investigating the complaint and to get at the truth of the allegations in the complaint and file a report before the Government as to whether the allegations have been substantiated. This is clear from a comparison of Sections 12 and 15. Under Section 12, the Lok Ayukta has to find out whether after investigating any action in respect of a complaint involving a grievance such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or any other person. Under Section 15, the Lok Ayukta has to go further and it is satisfied that the public servant has committed any criminal offence and that he should be prosecuted in a Court of Law for such offence, initiate prosecution. Therefore, the Lok Ayukta has to consider whether there is sufficient reason to infer whether there is any injustice or hardship to the complainant or any other person and then to find out whether there is sufficient evidence to prosecute the public servant. For W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:12:- the standard of proof required, the two parts are different. For the first, at the most what is required is preponderance of probability. It is only for the second part evidence for a successful prosecution for a criminal offence has to be made out. 11.Hence learned senior counsel for the respondent submitted that preponderance of probability alone is required to send a report under Section 12(3). On the basis of the law settled by the decision of this Court it is clear that there are sufficient materials established and those are dealt with in Ext.P13 report of the Lok Ayukta for arriving at a conclusion that the Minister and his Private Secretary have exceeded their jurisdiction in sending Exts.P1(a) to P1(d) lists to the transferring authority of the KSRTC and based on that, transfers were effected by the 4[th] respondent. He further submitted that another allegation raised in the complaint, Ext.P1, was regarding the payment to M/s.Anikal Rubbers ordered by the petitioner and the CMD, the third respondent, and based on that order directed payment of the same. The petitioner, as Minister has no power to issue such an order. That aspect of the matter was dealt with by the Lok Ayukta in paragraphs 23 to 30 of Ext.P13 report. The Lok Ayukta arrived at W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 ## -:13:- a finding as follows: “....Thus it is clear that first respondent misused his power as Minister in giving direction to the third respondent for disbursing five lakhs and odd to Anikkal Rubbers at a time when the award passed by IFC had not become final. First respondent ought to have directed the Corporation to take legal steps to challenge the award passed by I.F.C.” 12.The Minister, without verifying the veracity, passed order on 15.11.2004 to release 25% of the award amount. The CMD on the same day passed an order to carry out the order of the Minister. On the very same day the KSRTC passed an order directing to release `5.4 lakhs to Anikkal Rubbers. Though the CMD, in his deposition, stated that he exercised his discretion in passing the order, it is factually incorrect as is evident from the order passed by him which says that “please carry out the order of the Minister forthwith”. This being the position, it is clear that, the CMD, the competent authority, passed order on the basis of the order passed by the higher authority, the Minister. Hence, there is failure to exercise discretion by the competent authority, as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the decision in Anirudhsinhji Karansinhi Jadeja v. State of Gujarat (1995 ## W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:14:- ## (5) SCC 302). In paragraph 11 of the said decision it is observed as follows: “..... If the discretion is exercised under the direction or in compliance with some higher authority's instruction, then it will be a case of failure to exercise discretion altogether. In other words, the discretion vested in the DSP in this case by Section 20-A(1) was not exercised by the DSP at all.” 13.Again this is a case of interference with the day to day administration of the KSRTC by the Minister, for which the Minister is not competent to issue any order under Section 34 of the Road Transport Corporation Act. Hence, here again the finding of the Lok Ayukta on the basis of the observations in paragraphs 23 to 30 of its order is well founded. 14.During the course of hearing, I directed the Government Pleader to ascertain whether Minister of Transport has got power under rules of business to exercise any kind of control over KSRTC. Rules of business of the Government of Kerala was placed before me. Rule 7 of the Rules of business of the Government of Kerala is extracted below: “The council shall be collectively responsible for all the W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:15:- executive orders issued in the name of Governor in accordance with this rules whether such orders are authorized by an individual minister on a matter appertaining to his portfolio, or as the result of discussion at the meeting of the council or otherwise.” ## 15.Rule 9 of the Rules of Business is as follows: “Without prejudice to the provisions of Rule 7, the Minister in charge of a department shall be primarily responsible for the disposal of the business appertaining to that department.” ## 16.The matters coming under transport department is enumerated under Clause XXXV of the Rules of Business which are as follows: i) Administration of Motor Vehicle Department. ii) Motor Vehicles Act and Rules and Kerala Motor Vehicles Taxation Act and Rules thereunder. iii) Road Transport Corporation Act and Rules. iv) Kerala State Road Transport Corporation. v) State Water Transport Department. vi) Cochin Shipyard. vii)Posts and Telecommunication Department (matters connected with). viii) Railways (matters connected with). ix) Civil Aviation (matters connected with). ## 17.By going through the Rules of Business, KSRTC is placed under the enumerated subject matter of Transport Department. The Minister, being primarily responsible for the conduct of business of the department, leeway shall be given to do such acts confining to the W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:16:- four corners of law for the disposal of the business of the department. The power to give directions by the Minister with respect to the enumerated matters of the department under rules of business is sanctioned by law and cannot be characterized as illegal and improper. 18.The directions given by the petitioner, though have got the authority of law, itself cannot go beyond the scrutiny contemplated under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. I shall confine myself to the question as to whether the acts alleged against the petitioner would come squarely within the scope of enquiry under the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act or not. 19.The question of jurisdiction of Lok Ayukta being specifically raised, I have gone through the provisions of the Act. The Act provides a cleavage between allegation and grievance. Clause 2(b) of the Act defines an allegation which would take in corruption also. Clause 2 (h) defines grievance, which is closely interwoven with maladministration as provided under the Act. A complaint constituting a grievance can only be by the person who suffered the injustice. Section (1)(a) relates to grievance and the 2[nd] schedule is W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:17:- also in relation to grievance. The complaint impugning the directions given by the petitioner is filed by the office bearer of the union and not by the person aggrieved by those directions. Therefore the complaint of the first respondent does not constitute grievance, which is defined as a claim by a person that he has sustained injustice or undue hardship which is the consequence of maladministration. Maladministration is defined as such action of the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action which is unreasonable, unjust, oppressive or improperly discriminatory or there has been wilful negligence or undue delay in taking such action or the administrative procedure or practice adopted in such action which involves undue delay. Section 8(1)(a) and the 2[nd] schedule will apply only in a case of grievance. The complaint of the first respondent can be reckoned as one constituting an allegation and hence beyond the ambit of Section 8(1)(a) and 2[nd] schedule of the Act. Therefore, I hold that the complaint pertaining to transfer and posting, if it constitute allegation, is perfectly maintainable notwithstanding the provisions contained in Section 8 W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:18:- ## (1)(a) and 2[nd] schedule of the Act. 20.Therefore, the enquiry has come down to a narrow compass that whether the directions given by the petitioner and the findings contained in Ext.P13 would come under the contemplation of allegation as defined under the Act. Section 2(b) which defines allegation is as follows: ## 21.Allegation in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant-- i) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other persons or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives, is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant. 22.The findings entered on the allegations in Ext.P13 report is only to the extent that the directions of the Minister is contrary to Section 34 of the Transport Corporation Act and hence amount to interference on the affairs of KSRTC. There is absolutely no finding so as to bring forth anyone of the three parameters of the definitional fiat of W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:19:- allegation. The directions given by the petitioner on the anvil of the rules of business being justifiable, those direction cannot be construed as contrary to law. The direction given by the petitioner, though cannot be justified under Section 34 of the Kerala State Road Transport Corporation Act, is justifiable under the overwhelming power given by the rules of business. Therefore, reckoning the power of the petitioner to give directions and going by the pleadings and materials placed on record, the direction have not caused grievance to any person nor caused pecuniary loss to the Corporation. As a matter of fact, the Corporation is only benefited by way of interest by part payment of award on the basis of direction of the petitioner. A representative of the people should always have the heart to assimilate the sufferings and tears of citizens. It is not controverted by record that the petitioner had directed payment of part of award amount to rescue the supplier from revenue recovery proceedings. Here also he had only taken a balanced approach by directing to pay only 25% of the award amount to mitigate the grievance of supplier by protecting the interest of KSRTC. Hence, W.P.(C)No.31762/2006 -:20:- the direction to make part payment of award amount is fully justifiable in the facts and circumstances and cannot be found fault with. In the result, the findings of the Lok Ayukta under Ext.P13 to proceed against the petitioner is quashed and the writ petition is allowed. In the circumstances, there will be no order as to costs. sl. **B.P. Ray, Judge.**