IN THE HIGH COURT OF ANDHRA PRADESH: AMARAVATI

HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CHIEF JUSTICE

&
HON’BLE Mr. JUSTICE R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO

WRIT PETITION Nos.36124, 8151, 22438, 39028,

40279 of 2022 and 1578 of 2023

COMMON ORDER

Dt.12.05.2023

(Prashant Kumar Mishra, CJ)

In this batch of writ petitions, petitioners have called in question

the orders passed by the Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh, issuing directions to

lodge criminal complaints before the Additional Director General of Police,

CB CID, A.P; as such, they are heard together and disposed of by this

common order.

2. In view of the nature of the order that is being passed in this batch

of writ petitions, facts stated in each of the writ petitions are not being

referred. The main ground of challenge to the order passed by the

Lokayukta is that before directing to lodge criminal complaints against the

petitioners basing upon the report of the District Collector or any other

authority, which was called for by the Lokayukta, no opportunity of

hearing has been granted to the petitioners.

3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have referred to the law laid

down by the erstwhile High Court of A.P. in S. Jagadeswar v. The Lok

 2 HCJ & RRR,J
W.P.Nos.36124 of 2022
& batch

Ayukta of Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad and ors. – 1996 (4) ALT

1072, and that of the High Court of Judicature at Hyderabad for the State

of Telangana and the State of Andhra Pradesh in Govt. of Andhra

Pradesh, rep. by its Principal Secretary, Revenue (Endowments-I)

and others – 2014 (4) AT 645 and Dr. R.G. Sunil Reddy v. A.P.

Lokayukta – (2015) 6 ALD 302, to argue that before recommending

initiation of either departmental action or criminal action, service of notice

and opportunity of hearing to the public servants is mandatory.

4. It is also argued that the nature of complaint lodged before the

Lokayukta invoking its jurisdiction to recommend action against public

servants, is not within the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta, as the same

pertains to private land dispute between the parties.

5. Section 10 of the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayukta

Act, 1983 (for short, “the 1983 Act”) provides for procedure in respect of

investigations. Section 10(1)(b) thereof provides that where the

Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta after making such preliminary verification as

he deems fit proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act, he shall

afford to the public servant concerned an opportunity to offer his

comments on such complaint or statement. After following the procedure

prescribed under Sections 10 and 11 of the 1983 Act, the Lokayukta is

empowered to submit report as mentioned under Section 12, which

 3 HCJ & RRR,J
W.P.Nos.36124 of 2022
& batch

provides that, if, after investigation in respect of any action under the Act,

the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is

substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing,

communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant

documents, materials or other evidence to the competent authority, who

shall examine the report and take action based on the recommendation.

Thus, the statutory mandate under Section 10(1)(b) is to afford an

opportunity of hearing if the Lokayukta proposes to conduct investigation.

6. It is the specific contention of the petitioners in all the writ petitions

that before passing the orders impugned directing to lodge criminal

complaint, the Lokayukta has not afforded them any opportunity of

hearing. This statement in the writ affidavits has not been controverted

by the respondents.

7. In view of the above and considering the violation of principles of

natural justice as well as the provisions contained in Section 10(1)(b) of

the 1983 Act, we are of the considered view that the impugned orders are

not sustainable, which deserve to be, and are hereby, set aside reserving

liberty in favour of the Lokayukta that if the said authority decides to

initiate proceedings afresh, it may do so by following the provisions

contained in the 1983 Act and the Rules made thereunder. In such

eventuality, the petitioners would be at liberty to raise all questions

 4 HCJ & RRR,J
W.P.Nos.36124 of 2022
& batch

including jurisdiction of the Lokayukta to entertain the complaints. If the

jurisdiction of the Lokayukta is challenged by the petitioners, the

Lokayukta shall decide the question of jurisdiction before passing final

orders.

8. Accordingly, the writ petitions are allowed to the extent indicated

above. No order as to costs. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any,

shall stand closed.

Sd/- Sd/-

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, CJ R. RAGHUNANDAN RAO, J

MRR