9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Jurisdiction of Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983. 2. Definition and scope of "public servant" under the Act. 3. Applicability of the Act to various officials working in different capacities within the State of Andhra Pradesh. Detailed Analysis: 1. Jurisdiction of Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 The primary issue in these appeals is whether the Lokayukta/Upa-Lokayukta had the jurisdiction to entertain complaints against the writ petitioners under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983. The Act was enacted to appoint Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta for investigating administrative actions taken by or on behalf of the Government of Andhra Pradesh or certain local and public authorities in the state. 2. Definition and Scope of "Public Servant" under the Act The definition of "public servant" is crucial to determine the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. According to Section 2(k) of the Act, a "public servant" includes various categories of officials, such as: - Ministers, Secretaries, and Members of the State Legislature. - Mayors of Municipal Corporations. - Officials belonging to classes or sections notified by the Government after consultation with the Lokayukta. 3. Applicability of the Act to Various Officials The appeals involve different officials working in diverse capacities. The High Court's decision in each case was based on whether these officials fell within the definition of "public servant" under the Act. Civil Appeal No. 2020 of 1986: - The respondent was the Chief Executive Officer of Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Union Limited. - The High Court ruled that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction as the respondent was not a "public servant" under Section 2(k)(v)(5) of the Act. The Chief Executive Officer was not considered equivalent to the Chairman or President of the Governing Body. Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 1986: - The respondent was the Divisional Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. - The High Court found that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction because the respondent did not fall under the definition of "public servant" as per Section 2(k)(v)(2). The Corporation was not established under a State Act but a Central Act. Civil Appeal No. 2022 of 1986: - The respondent was a doctor in the dispensary run by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation. - The High Court upheld that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction as the respondent did not fall under the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(k)(v)(2) for the same reasons as in Civil Appeal No. 2021 of 1986. Civil Appeal No. 2023 of 1986: - The respondent was a clerk in Andhra Pradesh State Wool Industrial Cooperative Society Limited. - The High Court ruled that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction because the respondent was not a "public servant" under Section 2(k)(v)(5). The clerk did not hold a managerial position equivalent to Chairman or President. Civil Appeal No. 2024 of 1986: - The respondent was the Business Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Handloom Weavers Cooperative Society Ltd. - The High Court found that the Lokayukta had no jurisdiction as the respondent did not fall under the definition of "public servant" under Section 2(k)(v)(5). The Business Manager was not equivalent to the Chairman or President of the Governing Body. Conclusion: The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's decisions in all the appeals, concluding that the respondents did not fall within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983. The appeals were dismissed, and the respondents were rightly held to be outside the purview and jurisdiction of the Lokayukta. The legislative intent behind the Act was emphasized, noting the need for Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta to have enforceable powers to maintain public confidence in their roles as ombudsmen.
|
