Bagamane issue. Samaj Parivartthana Samudaya files PIL before the Karnataka High Court challenging Lokayukta proceedings.

Samaj Parivartthana Samudaya (S.P.S.) has filed a Public Interest Litigation before the Karnataka High Court questioning the legality of the proceedings initiated by the Karnataka Lokayukta on the complaint filed by M/s. Bagamane Developers in the matter of clearing encroachments on Storm Water Drains in the city of Bangalore.

S.P.S. has contended that the entire proceedings are without jurisdiction and in violation of the basic structure of the Constitution of India inasmuch as they violate and confront the judicial review power of the High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. What is alarming, the petitioner contends that a parallel judicial review of administrative action is sought to be undertaken by the Karnataka Lokayuktaa.

Extracts from the petition.

“Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1994 was enacted to "improve the standards of Public Administration, by looking into complaints against the administrative actions including case of corruption, favouritism and official in discipline in administration machinery”. The Act provides for appointment of a Lokayukta and one more Upa Lokayukta to investigate and report on allegations or grievance relating to the conduct of public servants. 

Section 2(1) of the Act defines "action” to mean administrative action taken by way of decision, recommendation or finding or in any other manner and includes wilful failure or omission to act and all other expressions relating to such action shall be construed accordingly;

Section 2(2) is defines “allegation” in relation to a public servant includes any affirmation that such public servant has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; 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; OR has failed to act in accordance with the norms of integrity and conduct which ought to be followed by public servants of the class to which he belongs:

Section 2(5) defines “corruption” to include anything made punishable under Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code or under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Section 7 of the Act deals with matters which may be investigated by the Lokayukta & Upa Lokayukta. Section 7(b) says that Lokayukta may investigate where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta regarded in writing, the subject of a grievance or an allegation.  

Section 8 deals with matters which cannot be investigated by Lokayukta. Section 8 (1) (b) says that the Lokayukta cannot investigate any complaint if the complainant has or had, any remedy by way of appeal, revision, review or other proceedings before any tribunal, Court officer or other authority and has not availed of the same.

The grievance M/s Bagmane Development Pvt. Ltd. certainly falls within the judicial review of High Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. Where the complainant has an alternative remedy before the court of law and where any administrative action involves discretion, the first respondent has no power to investigate. 

From the order of the first respondent, it is seen that the grievance is not one pertaining to corruption. It is submitted that the entire proceedings are outside the purview of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act 1984 and that the judicial review power which is rested in the High Courts under Article 226 of the Constitution of India is sought to be usurped by the first respondent in the guise of enquiry into the “grievance of the M/s Bagmane Development Pvt. Ltd.”.

It is submitted that the initiation of the proceedings in question and their continuation constitute a dangerous precedent since any person aggrieved by administrative action of statutory body can approach first respondent in the guise of raising grievance under Section 2 (8) instead of approaching the Constitutional Courts for the redressal of the grievances. There is certain possibility that a parallel judicial review institution is being created diluting or questioning the very power of High Courts.  

The first respondent’s decision is not only unconstitutional but the same amounts to creation of parallel power centre akin to constitution courts.”   

 

Petition drafted and filed by 
Goutham Ramesh - 9611354928
Gopi Karunakaran - 9820400951
Uday Shankar - 9590888887

Advocates 
Daksha Legal, Bengaluru