wRIT PETITION NO: 2767 OF 2018 v. 1. Lokayukta lnstitution for AP and Telangana

.....RESPONDENTS Petition Under A(icle 226 ol the Constitution of lndia praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed therewith, the High Court may be pleased to issue an appropriate Writ, Order or Direction, more particularly one in the nature of writ of certiorari to call for the records relating to the order dated 08- 08-2017 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha in Complaint No.305/2016/81 and quash the same being illegal, arbitrary, and without jurisdiction. I.A.NO:1 OF 2018 Petition Under section 151 CPC praying that in the circumstances stated in the affidavit filed in support of the petition, the High Court may be pleased to Suspend the impugned order dated 08-08-2017 passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha in complaint No. 305/2016/8l pending disposal of the above writ petition. Counsel for the Petitioner : M/s PINGALI LAKSHMI Counsel for the Respondent No.1 : SRI Y.RAVINDER Counsel for the Respondent No.2 : SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY The Court made the following ORDER kii;'', .-,,11;;..;ir *',, ' / / THE HON'BLE THE CHTEF J(,STICE ALOK ARADHE AND THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTIC E J.SREENTVAS RAO WRIT PETITION No.2767 of 2OL8 ORDER: (Per tLw Hon'ble Sri Justice J.Sreeniuas Rao) This writ petition is filed for the following relief: ". . .t<t issue a Wit, Order or Direction rnor<z espe:ciallg one in tLLe nature of Wnt of ctf Ceftiorari to calt for the remrds relating to the Order dated O8.O8.2O17 passed- by the Hon'bl'= Lol;.ayuktha in Complaint No.3O5/ 2016/ 81 and quttslt the same being illegal, arbitrary and uithout jurisdiction. "

2. There is no representation on behalf of the petitioner as well as the respondents

3. Facts giving rise to hting of this writ iretition briefly stated are that respondent No.2 lodged a cornplaint before respondent No.l on 07.OB.2'C|7 on the gror-rntl that the petitioner-Corporation is not paying compensation in respect of the land to an extent of Ac.O.O2 gts.in Sy.No'737/B, WeLrangal. Basing on. the said compla-int, respondent No' 1 initiated proceedings and passed order on 08.08.2017 2 directing the petitioner-Corporation to initiate land acqrrisition proceedings, make award enquiry and pay the compensation to respondent No'2/complainant and file the compliance report by l4'Ll'2O17 ' Aggrieved by the salne, the petitioner-Corporation filed the present writ Petition. 4- Section 2(al and (b) as well as Section 7 of the Telangana l,oka5rukta Act, 1983, read as under: "2. Defrnitions:- (a) 'action' means an administrative action taken by a public servant by way of decision, recommendation or hnding or in any other manner, and includes any omission and commission and failure to act in conneclion with or arising out of such action; and all other expressions connecting action shall be construed accordinglY- lbl 'atlegation'in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such Public servant has abused his position as such, to (i) obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person, or to calrse undue harrn or hardship to any other person; (ia) has failed to discharge the functions attached to his post- (ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant try 3 irnproper or corrupt motive and thereby calsed loss to the State or any rnember or section of the public; or (iiil is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant-

7. (l ) Subject to the provisions of this Act' the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with tJle general or specihc apprcval of, or at the behest of,- (i) A Minister or a Secretary; or [ii] a Member of either House of the State l,egislature; or the MuniciPal tiii) a Mayor of Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for ttre time being in force; or (iii-a) a Vice Ctrancellor or a Registrar o[ a University; [w] any other public serwant, belonging to such class or section of Pubtic servants, as may be nodfred by the this behalf after Governrnent in consultation .1 rith the Lokayrrkta, in an-v case wtrere a complaint involving al allegation is rnade in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in t1-e oPinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation. [2] Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Upa- t okayukta rrlay investigate any action u.hich is taken by, or with the general or specilic approval of, any public servant, otLrer than those referred to in sub- section (l), in anl/ case wtrere a cornplaint involving an 4 allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation. (3J Notwithstanding anlthing in sub-section (2), the l,okayukta rnay, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any allegation in respect of an action which may be investigated by the Upa-Loka1nrkta under that sub-sectiorr, whether or rrot complaint has been made to the tokay'ukta in respect of such action. (4] Where two or more Upa-lrka]ruktas are appointed under this Act, the t-okayukta may by general or special order, assign to each of them rnatters which may be investigated by thern under this Act: Provided that no investigation made by the Upa- Lokayukta under this Act and no action taken or tlring done by him in respect of such investigation shall be called in question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order."

5. Thr.rs, from a perusa-l of the aforesaid provisions, it is evident that the action can be taken in respect of the complaint as defined under Section 2(al of the Telangana Loka5rukta Act, 19a3. The aforesaid Act does not authorize the Lokayukta to enquire into the compLaint 5 dated O7.O8.2ctl7, lodged by respondent No.2 in r.espect of non-payrnen.t of compensation in respect of the land to an extent o1'Ac.O.O2 gts. in Sy.No.737/B, War-anga_I. Hence, the irrrpugned order passed by respondent No.1 dated 08.08.2077 is set aside.

6. Accordingly, the Writ Petition is a_llowed. However, respondent No.2 is granted libert5r to work or_rt his remedies in accordance with law. As a sr:quel, rniscellaneous petitions, pencling if any, sha1l stand closed. That Rule Nisi has been absolute as above' Witness the Hon'ble the Chief Justice ALOK ARADHE, on this Tuesday, the Seventh day of January, Two Thousand and Twenty four' //TRUE COPY// SD/.A. PRAT IMA ASSISTANT REGIS RAR SECTION OFFICER l.TheRegistrar,t.okayuktalnstitutionforAPandTelangana,DoorNo5-9-49' Basheerbagh, Hyderabad - 500063 , Telangana -. 2. one cc toi//s ptrucatt LAKSHMI, Advocate [oPUc] 3. One CC to SRI Y.RAVINDER, Advocate [OPUC] 4. One CC to SRI P.PRABHAKAR REDDY, Advocate (OPUC) 5. Two CD Copies, To SA utcF{& ,\ { 4{t.iEs 14 (\ (' 21 ?w5 '/,At, * 06 s ,'ATC!rE o \\ { * HIGH COURT DATED:071O112025 ORDER WP.No.2767 ot 2018 ALLOWING THE W.P WITHOUT COSTS. utll,)*