2010 (11) TMI 1063 - HC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Interpretation of Sections 2(m)(iv) and 17 of the Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 (DLAU Act).
2. Jurisdiction of the Lokayukta over IAS officers deputed to government-owned companies.
3. The nature of the Lokayukta's function and its implications on impartiality and neutrality.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Interpretation of Sections 2(m)(iv) and 17 of the DLAU Act:
The primary issue revolves around the interpretation of Sections 2(m)(iv) and 17 of the DLAU Act. Section 2(m)(iv) defines 'public functionary' to include a Chairman, Vice-Chairman, Managing Director, or a Member of the Board of Directors of a government company. Section 17, however, explicitly states that the Lokayukta shall not inquire into allegations against any member of the Civil Services of the Union or an All India Service, which includes IAS officers.

2. Jurisdiction of the Lokayukta over IAS Officers:
The petitions question whether the Lokayukta has jurisdiction over IAS officers deputed to government-owned companies. The Lokayukta had interpreted that IAS officers appointed as Directors of government companies lose their immunity under Section 17 and become amenable to the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. However, the High Court disagreed, stating that Section 17 is a total prohibition against the Lokayukta entertaining any complaint against an IAS officer, irrespective of their position in a government-owned company. The Court emphasized that Section 17 is declaratory and overrides any contrary indication in Section 2(m)(iv).

3. Nature of the Lokayukta's Function:
The Lokayukta argued that its role is investigative rather than adjudicatory, suggesting that seeking to be heard in support of its own order does not compromise its impartiality. However, the Court noted that the Lokayukta's decision on jurisdiction is an adjudicatory function, as it involves deciding a dispute (lis) between two parties. The Court stressed that the Lokayukta must always be seen as impartial and should not seek to defend its decisions when challenged in higher courts. The Lokayukta's role should be confined to the scope of the DLAU Act, and it should not add clauses or exceptions that do not exist.

Court's Decision:
The High Court set aside the Lokayukta's order dated 5th February 2010, ruling that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction to inquire into allegations against the petitioners, who were IAS officers on deputation to government-owned companies. The complaints were dismissed as not maintainable. The Court also dismissed the Lokayukta's applications to be impleaded or heard in support of its order, emphasizing the need for the Lokayukta to maintain impartiality and not defend its decisions in higher courts. The writ petitions were allowed with no order as to costs.