Office Of Lokayukta vs Govt. Of Nct Of Delhi & Anr.
2009 Latest Caselaw 2030 Del

*             IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI


+                  L.P.A. No. 160/2009 & C.M. No. 5293/2009

                                       Decided on: 14th May, 2009

        OFFICE OF LOKAYUKTA                          ..... Appellant
                       Through:     Ms. Priya Kumar, Advocate.

                   versus

        GOVT. OF NCT OF DELHI & ANR.            ..... Respondents

Through: Mr. Najmi Waziri, Mr. Rajiv Nanda, Mr. Anjum Zaved and Mr. Akash Pratap, Advocates.

CORAM:

HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL

1.Whether reporters of the local papers be allowed to see the judgment ? Yes

2.To be referred to the Reporter or not ? Yes

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Yes

AJIT PRAKASH SHAH, CJ (Oral)

1. The present appeal arises from the order passed by the

learned single Judge in Writ Petition (Civil) No. 699 of 2009 dated

13th March, 2009. By the order under appeal, the learned single

Judge held that the Lokayukta is debarred from calling the records

of any matter or case from the Government and its departments

prior to issuance of notice to the public functionaries or what has

been referred to as the pre-inquiry stage. The Lokayukta was

directed that he shall first decide on the question of maintainability

of the complaint and in case he decides to proceed with the matter,

a formal notice shall be issued.

2. The facts necessary to decide the controversy in this case are

set out as follows. A complaint was filed in the office of the

Lokayukta on 8th October, 2008, under Section 9 of The Delhi

Lokayukta and Upalokayukta Act, 1995 ('Act' for short), inter alia,

with regard to purchase of Low-Floor buses by the Government of

Delhi. On 17th November, 2008, the complaint was taken up by the

Lokayukta and directions were issued to the complainant. The

Government was also directed to produce the records relating to

the process of issuance of tenders for purchase of 625 Non-AC Low

Floor CNG buses including the record containing the decision

making process. The matter was taken up by the Lokayukta on 17th

December, 2008, 9th January, 2009 and 15th January, 2009. On 17th

December, 2008 and 15th January, 2009, the direction in respect of

production of records was reiterated.

3. On 22nd January, 2009, the complainant who had not

appeared on two dates moved a formal application for permission

to join in the proceedings. The Government, on the other hand,

moved an application praying for dismissal of the complaint.

Notice was issued in both the applications and the complainant as

well as the Government were called upon to file their respective

replies. The Government, however, objected to notice being issued

on its own application on the ground that the application of the

complainant to join the proceedings had not been decided and that

the complainant had no locus to accept notice in the application of

the Government. This objection was rejected by the Lokayukta as

he was required to hear the complainant before deciding the issue

of maintainability and the plea for dismissal of the complaint.

4. During the proceedings of 22nd January, 2009, the

Government took a categorical stand that it would have no

objection in producing records in a suo moto proceeding. By an

order dated 28th January, 2009, the Lokayukta directed as under:-

"12. Secretary, Department of transport or the Officer holding charge of the said Department personally to produce the above relevant records on 02.02.2009 at 2.00 PM failing which proceedings under Section 175 IPC shall be initiated against the persons committing the offence."

5. The Government claiming to be aggrieved, filed the writ

petition inter-alia praying for quashing of the directions for

production of records in the order dated 28th January, 2009, as is

extracted above.

6. The findings of the learned single Judge are summarized in

paragraph 34 of the order, which read as under:-

"34. To summarize the discussion, it is held that:

(a) The Lokayukta and Upalokayukta have the power to inquire into complaints, and if necessary, use the services of investigative agencies deputed for the purpose. During the course of such inquiry, investigation is possible; so also, the power to call for documents, have evidence recorded through commission, etc, is exercisable. However, the power of inquiry does not include a preliminary inquiry.

(b) In a complaint procedure, the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta has to, after satisfying itself about the compliance with procedural formalities, prescribed by the statute, issue notice to the respective parties. The inquiry begins thereafter and the powers under

Section 11 are available, to aid the process of inquiry. At the "pre-inquiry" stage, or processing of the complaint, there is no question of the Lokayukta calling for the records from an authority. The power to do so is available after issuance of notice; the Lokayukta may, in a given case, issue notice and also call for the records, having regard to the circumstances, and the need to ensure that the documents are preserved or secured.

(c) In a suo motu proceeding, the Lokayukta does not have to satisfy itself about compliance regarding the complaint -it can straightaway proceed to issue notice, and exercise powers under Section 11;

(d) Section 10 enacts procedural flexibility, in regard to holding of inquiries. Yet, it sets out the standard of fairness, i.e. compliance with principles of natural justice. This provision underlines that the Lokayukta, though a judicial or quasi judicial body, is not really a court. It can evolve a fair procedure, having regard to the peculiar needs of a given case, or given class of cases which may present a common feature or peculiarity."

7. Mr. Maninder Singh, learned senior counsel appearing on

behalf of the appellant, contended that ordinarily, a statutory

authority would not question any direction issued by the Court,

however, in the present case the Office of Lokayukta is constrained

to file the present appeal as the impugned order has far reaching

consequences affecting the exercise of jurisdiction by the

Lokayukta and would seriously impede its functioning as an

independent authority. He contended that the conclusion of the

learned single Judge that the inquiry commences upon issuance of

notice and that Section 11 of the Act will be applicable only on such

notice being issued and existence of an inquiry is completely

erroneous. From the plain reading of the Act, it is evident that

there is no such requirement in the Act. On the contrary, the

Lokayukta has been given flexibility in deciding matters relating to

procedure including holding of any preliminary inquiry or

verification prior to issuance of notice. He contended that the

words "inquiry" and "investigation" are not used synonymously.

The Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta (Investigation) Rules only

relate to the "investigation" as the heading of the Rules itself

makes it clear and the stage for investigation is necessarily after

the issuance of notice to the public functionaries. However, the Act

used the broader term 'inquiry' instead of investigation. The

explanation to Section 7 clarifies that the term 'enquiry' includes

'investigation'. The Lokayukta cannot decide whether further

investigation was warranted without the relevant records. The

production and examination of record is a sine qua-non for any

inquiry, which cannot be conducted in vacuum. He contended that

the learned single Judge has concluded that even in suo moto

proceedings the Lokayukta would need to first issue notice to the

public functionaries whereas the submission of the Government

was that they would produce the records in suo moto proceedings.

It is further submission of the learned counsel that the Government

of Delhi is not a party to the proceeding/complaint and has, thus,

no locus to raise such issues. It was issued notice only to produce

records as a custodian thereof. According to him in the present

regime of Right to Information; it is incongruous for any

Government committed to transparency to deny production of

records and that too before a statutory authority created for

eliminating corruption. He pointed out that there is no claim of

privilege in respect of the records. Moreover, confidentiality of

record produced before the Lokayukta is protected under Section

14 of the Act.

8. On the other hand, Mr. Vikas Singh, learned senior counsel

appearing on behalf of Government of Delhi urged that the Act

mandated; by Section 9, that the complaint, in case it alleges

wrongdoing or misconduct of the Chief Minister, had to be in the

prescribed form; the complaint, in the present case, was not in that

form; besides, the court fee prescribed too had not been filed. It

was urged that the Lokayukta should have, in all fairness first

decided the question of maintainability, since the complainant

had without cause, absented himself, and his request to join

proceedings had not been granted. Instead, the Lokayukta

persisted in demanding the production of file. According to

learned counsel, the question of exercise of powers under Section

11 of the Act would arise only upon issuing notice on the complaint.

In the absence of the formal notice, the Lokayukta is not

entitled to call for the records of the State Government. He

contended that the Lokayukta exercises powers either suo

motu, or further to a complaint or information. If the proceedings

are not suo motu, and if the Lokayukta proposes an inquiry,

based on an inquiry itself or a complaint, he must formally take

cognizance of the matter, and issue notice. The proceedings

commence after the issuance of such notice and the Lokayukta

derives his power to summon records and documents, under

Section 11 of the Act to aid such inquiry or proceedings. Mr. Vikas

Singh further contended that the basis of the complaint was the

information provided to the complainant by the Metropolitan

Transport Corporation, Chennai regarding the purchase price of

semi-low floor buses. The clarification dated 20th October, 2008

issued by the said Corporation clearly states that the information

supplied earlier by them pertained to semi-low floor buses and not

low floor buses. This letter took away the very substratum of the

complaint, therefore, the complaint ought to have been dismissed

and the proceedings could not be continued any further as there

was no basis to do so whether suo moto or otherwise.

9. In order to appreciate the role and functions of Lokayukta, it

would be necessary to refer to the brief historical background and

origin of Lokayukta. The concept of Ombudsman evolved out of a

necessity to protect the common man from the administrative

faults, arising out of proliferating administrative agencies,

adversely affecting the life of a citizen. So far India is concerned

the starting point of such legislation is the Interim Report of the

Administrative Reforms Commission on "Problems of Redress of

Citizens' Grievances". The Commission recommended that the

person authorized to discharge the functions of the Ombudsman at

the Centre should be called as 'Lokpal' and his counterpart in the

States was to be called as 'Lokayukta'. In para 25 of its Report, the

Commission catalogued the main features of the two functionaries

viz. Lokpal and Lokayukta, in the following terms:-

"(a) They should be demonstrably independent and impartial.

(b) Their investigations and proceedings should be conducted in private and should be informal in character.

(c) Their appointment should, as far as possible, be non-political.

(d) Their status should compare with the highest judicial functionaries in the country.

(e) They should deal with matters in the discretionary field involving acts of injustice, corruption or favouritism.

(f) Their proceedings should not be subject to judicial interference and they should have the maximum latitude & powers in obtaining information relevant to their duties.

(g) They should not look forward to any benefit or pecuniary advantage from the executive Government."

10. After the receipt of this Report, the Central Government

introduced a Bill, called the Lokpal and Ayukta Bill, 1968. This Bill

lapsed. A second attempt was made in the year 1971 by

introducing another Bill 3 of 1971. This Bill also met with the same

fate. Thereafter a third Bill was introduced in Parliament but the

said Bill never became the law. So far as the Government of NCT of

Delhi is concerned, it enacted The Delhi Lokayukta and Upa-

Lokayuktas Act, 1995 (Delhi Act No. 1 of 1996) which is more or

less on the pattern of the Bills introduced in the Central legislation.

The object of the Act is to ensure an independent investigation of

administrative action. If after inquiry into the allegations, Lokayukta

is satisfied that such allegation is established, he makes a report

under Section 12(1) of the Act. After the report is submitted, the

competent authority has to examine the report and intimate the

action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report

within the time prescribed. If the Lokayukta or the Upa-Lokayukta is

satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on the

recommendations or findings contained in the report, he shall close

the case under information to the complainant, the public servant

and the competent authority concerned. But when he is not so

satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may

make a special report upon the case to the Lieutenant Governor

and also inform the complainant concerned. The Lokayukta and the

Upa-Lokayukta under sub-section (4) have to present annually a

consolidated report on the performance of their functions under the

Act to the Lieutenant Governor. On receipt of a special report under

sub-section (3), or the annual report under sub-section (4), the

Lieutenant Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an

explanatory memorandum to be laid before the Legislative

Assembly.

11. Section 7 of the Act enumerates the matters which may be

inquired into by the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta and the same reads

as under:-

"7. Matter which may be inquired into by Lokayukta or Uplokayukta- Subject to the provisions of this Act, on receiving complaint or other information or suo moto -

(a) The Lokayukta may proceed to inquire into an allegation made against a public functionary in relation to whom either the President or Lieutenant Governor is the competent authority;

(b) The Upalokayukta may proceed to inquire into an allegation made against any public functionary other than that referred to in clause (a);

Provided that the Lokayukta may inquire into an allegation made against any public functionary referred to in clause (b).

Explanation:- For the purposes of this section the expressions "may proceed to inquire" and "may inquire" include investigation by any person or agency put at the disposal of the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta in pursuance of sub-section (2) of Section 13."

12. Section 8 of the Act states the matters which are not subject

to inquiry by the Lokayukta and Uplokayukta. Section 9 provides a

procedure relating to complaints. It says that every complaint

involving an allegation shall be made in such form as may be

prescribed and shall be accompanied by a deposit of Rs.500/-(Five

hundred rupees). The complainant shall also swear an affidavit in

such form as may be prescribed before any officer authorized by

the Lokayukta in this behalf. Under sub-section (2) of Section 9 of

the Act, every person who willfully or maliciously makes any false

complaint under the Act, shall be punishable with rigorous

imprisonment which may extend to three years or with fine which

may extend to five thousand rupees or with both.

13. For investigation of the complaints wide powers have been

conferred on the Lokayukta under the Act. Sections 10, 11 and 13

of the Act, which are material for our purpose are reproduced

below:-

"10. Procedure in respect of inquiry- The Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall, in each case before it, decide the procedure to be followed for making the inquiry and in so doing ensure that the principles of natural justice are satisfied.

11. Applicability of Evidence Act and Code of Criminal Procedure- (1) The provisions of the Evidence Act, 1872 (1 of 1872), and the

code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974), shall as nearly as may be, apply to the procedure of inquiry before Lokayukta or Upalokayukta in the matter of -

(i) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and his examination on oath;

                         (ii)  requiring      the  discovery and
                         production of       documents and proof
                         thereof;

(iii) receiving evidence on affidavits;

(iv) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office;

(v) issuing commissions for examination of witnesses or documents; and such other matters as may be prescribed;

Provided that no proceeding before the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall be invalidated only on account of want of formal proof if the principles of natural justice are satisfied.

(2) Any proceeding before the Lokayukta or Upalokayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and section 228 of the Indian Penal Code, 1960 (45 of 1960).

(3) The Lokayukta and Upalokayukta shall be deemed to be a Civil Court for the purpose of section 195 and Chapter XXVI of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (2 of 1974).

XXX XXX XXX

13. Staff of Lokayukta and Upalokayukta- (1) The Government shall in consultation with the Lokayukta, provide officers and other employees to assist the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta in the discharge of their functions under this Act.

(2) Without prejudice to the provisions of sub- section (1), the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta

may, for the purpose of conducting inquiries under this Act, utilize the services of -

(i) any officer of investigation agency of the Government or the Central Government, with the concurrence of that Government, or

(ii) any other person or agency."

14. Section 16 of the Act provides that if the Lokayukta, in

discharge of its functions under the Act, notices a practice or

procedure which in his opinion afforded an opportunity for

corruption or maladministration, he may bring it to the notice of the

Government and may suggest such improvement in the said

practice or procedure as he may deem fit.

15. The Delhi Lokayukta and Upalokayukta (Investigation) Rules,

1998, are framed under the provisions of the Act. Rule 2 contains

definitions. Sub-rule (iv) of Rule 2, which is relevant reads as

under:-

"Rule 2 (iv) "Investigation" means any enquiry or other proceedings in connection with the complaint but does not include a preliminary enquiry."

16. Rule 6 deals with complaints, it stipulates that a complaint

against the Chief Minister or a Minister or a Member of Legislative

Assembly shall be in Form-I accompanied by an affidavit in Form-III

in support of its contents. The complaint against other functionaries

shall be in Form-II accompanied by an affidavit in Form-III in

support of its contents. Rule 7 prescribes that a fee of five hundred

rupees shall be paid in Judicial stamps.

17. Rules 15 and 16 stipulate as under:-

"15. Powers to regulate proceedings and investigations - The Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta shall have the powers, subject to the provisions of the Act, to regulate the conduct of proceedings, investigations and enquiries in all matters not provided for in these rules.

16. Procedure to be adopted at the investigation - When the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta conducts an investigation under the Act, he shall after a copy of the complaint or the statement of the grounds of the investigation has been served on the public functionary concerned, afford reasonable opportunity to him or his authorized representative to inspect or copy the affidavit of the complaint and other documents which may have been filed in support of such complaint, affidavit or a statement.

Explanation -

"Copy" includes preparation of a copy in manuscript or typewriting machine."

18. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the

Act requires the Lokayukta to issue notice to the public

functionaries and only thereafter a direction can be given for

requesting/calling for the records. Incidental question is whether

the Lokayukta is precluded from conducting a preliminary inquiry

prior to issuance of notice to public functionaries.

19. At the outset it must be mentioned that notice in this case

has not been issued to the public functionaries under the Act

against whom complaint has been filed. Notice was issued only to

Government of Delhi to produce the records to enable the

Lokayukta to proceed further in the matter. The State is resisting

this direction by raising technical pleas like complaint not having

been accompanied by affidavit and delayed filing of the judicial

stamp to make up the deficiency etc. Prosecution of the

complainant under Section 9(2) of the Act is sought for filing a false

and vexatious complaint. Curiously, before the Lokayukta it was

urged on behalf of the State that they would produce the records

not in the complaint but in the suo motu proceedings, if initiated by

the Lokayukta. On merits, the State sought to argue that the buses

acquired by Chennai Corporation were not low floor buses and were

semi-low floor buses. There is no provision in the Act which says

that the provisions of Section 11 of the Act, empowering the

Lokayukta to summon any record, would be applicable only after

issuance of notice to the parties. The Act does not require issuance

of notice to the public functionary before summoning the records

so as to satisfy himself that there is sufficient material to proceed

against the public functionary. The Government of Delhi being the

custodian of records was issued notice to produce the same. The

proceedings before the Lokayukta are inherently informal and not

technical in nature and as long as there is no violation of principles

of natural justice, the interference by the High Court in writ

jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution would not be

appropriate.

20. We are also unable to agree with the view of the learned

single Judge that the term "enquiry" and "investigation" are used

synonymously in the Act and the Rules. The explanation to Section

7 of the Act provides that the expressions "may proceed to inquire"

and "may inquire" include investigation by any person or agency at

the disposal of the Lokayukta and Upalokayukta in pursuance of

sub-section (2) of Section 13 of the Act. Rule 2(iv) of the Rules on

which the learned single Judge has placed reliance deals with

investigation, which would be a post notice stage and in case the

Lokayukta decides after the preliminary inquiry to proceed against

the public functionaries then he would certainly issue notice and

'proceed to investigate' the matter in terms of the procedure as

laid down by the Rules. Rule 2(iv) thus applies only to post notice

stage and, therefore, it excludes the preliminary inquiry. The

provisions authorizing the Lokayukta to decide his procedure and

power to summon the record, does not require issuance of notice to

the public functionaries before summoning the records so as to

satisfy himself that there is sufficient material to proceed against

the public functionaries.

21. The power of the Lokayukta to hold a preliminary inquiry,

before issuing a formal notice, has been considered by the

Supreme Court in the case of Chaudhary Rama Rao vs.

Lokayukta & Ors., (1996) 5 SCC 304. In that case, an

anonymous complaint was received before the Lokayukta under

Section 3 of the A.P. Lokayukta & Up-Lokayukta Act, 1983. After

conducting preliminary investigation, the Lokayukta submitted his

interim report prohibiting purchase of the generator sets and also

by interim report directed the Government either to suspend the

petitioner or to transfer him and to take similar action against the

Superintending Engineer as well. In the writ petition, the petitioner

challenged the constitutionality of certain provisions of the A.P. Act

which was given up before the Supreme Court but objection was

raised to the procedure adopted by the Lokayukta in submitting the

report for taking action against the petitioner, for his suspension or

to transfer him to any other place. It was contended that the

petitioner has not been given any opportunity before submitting

the report to the Government and the action is contrary to Section

10 read with Section 12 of the Act. Repelling the objections, the

Court held:-

"4. The Lokayukta is empowered under the Act to conduct such preliminary verification as he deems fit or proposes to conduct any investigation under the Act to find whether the allegation in the complaint prima facie justify for conducting regular investigation. Sub- section (2)(a) of Section 10 postulates that every preliminary verification referred to in Sub-section (1) shall be conducted in private and in particular, the identity of the complainant and of the public servant affected by the said preliminary verification shall not be disclosed to the public or the press whether before or during the preliminary verification, but every investigation referred to in Sub- section (1) shall be conducted in public. In other words, the statutory provision contemplates that while conducting preliminary verification of the complaint under Sub-section (1) of Section 12, the investigation is required to be made in confidentiality and on satisfying from the investigation of the alleged misconduct, etc. He is empowered to take further action under the Act. He is also empowered under Section 11 to collect evidence or have the investigation done as a Civil Court by operation of Sub-section (2) of Section 11 of the Act only when he satisfies that there is an evidence to proceed further under Section 10(1)(b). At that stage, he shall afford an opportunity to the aggrieved person to comment on such complaint or the statement and conduct the investigation or inquiry. He is enjoined to give reasonable opportunity to the public servant. After conducting the said inquiry, if he finds that the public servant or the person referred committed misconduct, then he is required to submit the report to the Government as enjoined under Section 12 of the Act. On receipt thereof, under Sub-section (3), it shall

be lawful for the Government to take action as recommended by the Lokayukta.

5. Considered from the operational conspectus of the above provisions, it would not be necessary to issue any notice or give opportunity to a public servant at preliminary verification or investigation. When the Lokayukta or Up-lokayukta, as the case may be, conducts a regular investigation into the complaint, it would be necessary to give prior opportunity to the public servant etc. By implication, such an opportunity stands excluded when preliminary verification or investigation is conducted. The object appears to be that the preliminary investigation or verification is required to be done in confidentiality to get a prima facie evidence so that the needed evidence or material may not be got suppressed or destroyed........................ ...."

22. Our attention was drawn to the decision of the Supreme

Court in Shashikant vs. Central Bureau of Investigation,

(2007) 1 SCC 630, in which CBI had initiated a preliminary inquiry

upon receipt of the complaint. The question which had arisen for

consideration was as to whether it was obligatory on the part of the

CBI to lodge a first information report and carry out a full-fledged

investigation about the truthfulness or otherwise of the allegations

made in the said anonymous complaint. The Court observed that

although ordinarily in terms of Section 154 of the Code, when a

report is received relating to the cognizable offence, a first

information report should be lodged, to carry out a preliminary

inquiry even under the Code is not unknown. When an anonymous

complaint is received, no Investigating Officer would initiate

investigative process immediately thereupon. It may for good

reasons carry out a preliminary inquiry to find out the truth or

otherwise of the allegations contained therein. The Court referred

to the view expressed by Mitter, J. in P. Sirajuddin v. State of

Madras, (1970) 1 SCC 595, in the following words:

" Before a public servant, whatever be his status, is publicly charged with acts of dishonesty which amount to serious misdemeanour or misconduct of the type alleged in this case and a first information is lodged against him, there must be some suitable preliminary inquiry into the allegations by a responsible officer. The lodging of such a report against a person specially one who like the appellant occupied the top position in a department, even if baseless, would do incalculable harm not only to the officer in particular but to the department he belonged to, in general .... The means adopted no less than the end to be achieved must be impeccable."

23. The Court also referred to the observations of Mudholkar, J. in

a separate judgment in State of Uttar Pradesh v. Bhagwant

Kishore Joshi, AIR 1964 SC 221 which read as follows:-

" In the absence of any prohibition in the Code, express or implied, I am of opinion that it is open to a police officer to make preliminary enquiries before registering an offence and making a full scale investigation into it."

24. The Supreme Court in the matter of Champaklal Chimanlal

Shah vs. Union of India, (1964) SCR 190, has drawn a

distinction between the departmental inquiry and the preliminary

inquiry as follows:-

".....But even where it is intended to take action by way of punishment what usually happens is that something in the nature of what may be called a preliminary inquiry is first held in connection with the alleged misconduct or unsatisfactory work. In this preliminary inquiry the explanation of the government servant may be taken and documentary and even oral evidence may be considered. It is

usual when such a preliminary inquiry makes out a prima facie case against the servant concerned that charges are then framed against him and he is asked to show cause why disciplinary action be not taken against him..... "

25. In the light of the settled legal position, it is not possible to

accede to the submission that the Lokayukta has no power to call

for records in a preliminary inquiry. The exercise of calling for the

records was to satisfy that there was a prima facie case to proceed

with. The objections raised by the State regarding the

maintainability of the complaint are purely technical. Even

otherwise, it may not be open to the Government to raise any such

objection as it was issued notice only to produce records in its

possession. Under the provisions of the Act, Lieutenant Governor,

NCT of Delhi is required to take decision on the recommendations

made by the Lokayukta following an inquiry with respect to all

public functionaries. Therefore, entertaining a plea by the State

Government questioning the inquiry proceedings or exercise of

jurisdiction by the Lokayukta might seriously impede the statutory

and independent functioning of the Lokayukta under the Act. The

nature of proceedings conducted by the Lokayukta are altogether

different from a civil or criminal lis. Unlike civil or criminal

proceedings, a citizen making allegations against a public

functionary may not be in possession of complete facts or

documents, unless the allegation arises out of his personal

transaction with any public functionary. The powers conferred on

the Lokayukta are advisedly very wide. These powers are wider

than of any court of law. Notwithstanding remedies to be found in

courts of law and in statutory appeals against administrative

decisions, there still remains a gap in the machinery for the

redressal of grievances of the individuals against administrative

acts or omissions. The need to create an authority to deal with

such cases was felt by Conference of Jurists representing Asia and

Pacific Regions in following words:-

"This gap should be filled by an authority which is able to act more speedily, informally and with a greater regard to the individual justice of a case than is possible by ordinary legal process of the Courts, it should not be regarded as a substitute for, or rival to, the legislature or to the Courts but as a necessary supplement to their work, using weapons of persuasion, recommendation and publicity rather than compulsion".

The fight between an individual citizen and the State is unequal in nature. Therefore, the very existence of such an institution will act as a check and will be helpful in checking the canker of corruption and maladministration. More so when it has been repeatedly asserted that the canker of corruption, in the proportions it is said to have attained, may well dig into the vitals of our democratic State, and eventually destroy it (See Corruption - Control of Maladministration by John B. Monteiro)."

26. The provisions of such an enactment, which is enacted for

the eradication of the evil of corruption and maladministration must

be construed liberally so as to advance the remedy. In our opinion,

there is absolutely no merit in any of the objections raised by the

State Government. The records in question under the Right to

Information Act, 2005, would be available even to a private person

and we see no reason why the State should deny the production of

these documents before the Lokayukta. In the result, the appeal is

allowed. The order of the learned single Judge is set aside. The

pending application stands disposed of as well.

CHIEF JUSTICE

NEERAJ KISHAN KAUL, J.

MAY 14, 2009 sb