IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT HYDERABAD FOR THE STATE OF TELANGANA AND THE STATE OF ANDHRA PRADESH (Special Original Jurisdiction) PRESENT THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11498 OF 2010 DATED: 02-07-2014 Between:
Vemareddy Jai Kartik and others … Petitioners And The Institution of A.P. Lokayukta, Hyderabad and others … Respondents THE HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI KALYAN JYOTI SENGUPTA AND THE HON’BLE SRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR WRIT PETITION NO.11498 OF 2010 ORDER: (per Hon’ble the Chief Justice Sri Kalyan Jyoti Sengupta) In the record, we see the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court dated 21-09-2012 dismissing the Special Leave Petition filed by the unofficial respondent against the order dated 22-03-2012 passed in W.V.M.P. No.4103 of 2010 in W.P. No.11498 of 2010, refusing to vacate the interim stay granted by this Court earlier. The Hon’ble Supreme Court, by the aforementioned order, was pleased to request this Court to dispose of the writ petition as expeditiously as possible.
2. None appears for the unofficial respondent though his learned counsel’s name is reflected in the cause list. None appears on behalf of the other respondents also. We have however taken up the writ petition for hearing, in terms of the order of the Hon’ble Supreme Court.
3. In this matter, the issue is whether the order passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, which is impugned in this writ petition, is in accordance with the provisions of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983. In other words, whether the Hon’ble Lokayukta had jurisdiction to entertain the complaint made by the unofficial respondent and pass the impugned order.
4. This issue had already been decided by this Court on 20-02-2014 in ‘Mahathi High School vs. The Institute of Hon’ble Lokayukta of Andhra Pradesh and others’, reported in AIR 2014 (AP) 86. In that case, it was held by this Court as follows:
“In our considered view, as correctly contended by the learned counsel for the petitioner, going by the language mentioned in the four corners of the complaint, the Lokayukta can not take cognizance of this complaint and it should have been returned. For the time being we hold that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction with regard to the subject matter of the complaint. Accordingly, the order passed by the Lokayukta is not sustainable and so also the complaint made to it. The entire proceedings are set aside and quashed. However, liberty is given to the complainant, who appears in-person, to approach the appropriate forum with appropriate complaint and this order will not stand in the way.”
5. Here also the same point of jurisdiction is raised. Accordingly, the impugned order of the Lokayukta is set aside and the complaint made by the unofficial respondent/third respondent is also set aside. However, it would be open to the respondent authorities concerned to take independent action in the matter in accordance with law. It would also be open to the unofficial respondent/third respondent to take steps in accordance with law before the appropriate forum, as may be advised, if the cause still survives.
6. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. Pending miscellaneous petitions, if any, shall stand closed. No order as to costs.
K.J. SENGUPTA, CJ SANJAY KUMAR, J 02-07-2014 Svv