Telangana High Court

Telangana State Film Development ... vs The Lokayukta on 20 December, 2021

Bench: Satish Chandra Sharma, N.Tukaramji

 THE HON'BLE CHIEF JUSTICE SATISH CHANDRA SHARMA

                                AND

      THE HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N. TUKARAMJI


  Writ Petition Nos.5196 of 2021 and 5204 of 2021


COMMON ORDER:         (Per Hon'ble the Chief Justice Satish Chandra Sharma)



     Regard being had to the controversy involved in the

aforesaid cases, they were being heard together and are

being decided by this common order.


     The facts in Writ Petition No.5204 of 2021 are

reproduced as under :


     Heard the counsel for petitioner, and Smt. Sharada,

learned Standing Counsel for Lokayukta, appearing on

behalf of Sri Y. Ravindra, counsel for 1st respondent, in

the Writ Petitions.

The petitioner / Telangana State Film Development

Corporation Limited has filed the present Writ Petition

being aggrieved by the notice received by them and the

proceedings dt.18.06.2020 directing the petitioner to

submit a representation in respect of a complaint

submitted by 2nd respondent to the Lokayukta

establishment.

::2::

HCJ & NTR,J wp_5196_2021 &5204_2021

The petitioner's contention is that the so-called

complaint was filed before the Lokayukta / Upalokayuta

for the State of Telangana under the Telangana

Lokayukta Act, 1983 [as amended by Act 31 of 2017] for

reimbursement of Rs.30 lakhs.

The 2nd respondent has stated in the complaint that

he has prepared some documentary for promotion of

Children Films, and after preparation of documentary the

amount has not been paid to him by the petitioner.

The learned counsel for petitioner has placed

reliance upon the judgment delivered by this Court in the

case of Dr. R.G. Sunil Reddy vs. The A.P. Lokayukta,

Basheerbagh, Hyderabad and two others1. He has also

stated that a Money Suit / Recovery Proceedings for

recovery of dues without there being any allegation of

corruption is beyond the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta

establishment. Further, he placed reliance upon Section

7 of the Act, and the same is reproduced as under :

"7. Matters which may be investigated by Lokayukta or Upa- Lokayukta:-

(l) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at the behest of,-

           (i)     a Minister or a Secretary; or



    (2015) 6 ALD 302 (F.B.)
                                      ::3::
                                                                       HCJ & NTR,J
                                                         wp_5196_2021 &5204_2021



    (ii)      a Member of either House of the State Legislature; or

    (iii)     a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or

under the relevant law for the time being in force; or

[(iiia) a Vice Chancellor or a Registrar of a University.]

(iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.

(2) Subject to the provisions of this Act, the Upa-Lokayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant, other than those referred to in sub section (l), in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Upa-Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.

(3) Notwithstanding anything in sub-section (2), the Lokayukta may, for reasons to be recorded in writing, investigate any allegation in respect of an action which may be investigated by the Upa- Lokayukta under that sub-section, whether or not complaint has been made to the Lokayukta in respect of such action.

(4) Where two or more Upa-Lokayuktas are appointed under this Act, the Lokayukta may, by general or special order, assign to each of them matters which may be investigated by them under this Act :

Provided that no investigation made by the Upa-Inkayukta under this Act and no action taken or thing done by him in respect of such investigation shall be called in question on the ground only that such investigation relates to a matter which is not assigned to him by such order."

The aforesaid statutory provision of law empowers

the Lokayukta to investigate the matters wherein a

complaint is received involving an allegation against a ::4::

HCJ & NTR,J wp_5196_2021 &5204_2021

public servant. In the present case, there is no such

allegation except for making a statement that the 2nd

respondent is to receive a sum of Rs.30 lakhs. It is

purely a case filed before the Lokayukta in respect of

recovery of amount due to a Film Producer.

The Full Bench in the case of Dr. R.G. Sunil Reddy

(1 supra), while answering the issue whether the A.P.

Lokayukta has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint

which does not involve an allegation, has held at para

nos.27 and 28 as under :

"27. So far as three impugned directions given by the Lokayukta are concerned, learned counsel for the third respondent defended the said orders under Rule 22 of the Rules by contending that they are part of preliminary verification permissible under Rule 5 of the Rules. We are, however, of the view that when the Act itself does not empower the Lokayukta to issue any directions of the nature, as issued under the impugned order, neither the Rules can be read so as to defeat the object and purpose of the Act nor the Rules can override the provisions of the Act. The power of Lokayukta to undertake preliminary verification arises only in the event of registration of the complaint and on its, prima facie, satisfaction that all the essential ingredients required to be maintained in the complaint under Section 7 of the Act are satisfied. Thus, as discussed above, when the complaint of the third respondent sans any such allegation cognizable under Section 7 of the Act, all further proceedings including the impugned orders, in our view, cannot be sustained.

28. We, accordingly, answer question No.1 in the negative and hold that the Lokayukta has no jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, which neither involves an allegation nor involves any action or ::5::

HCJ & NTR,J wp_5196_2021 &5204_2021

inaction connected with such an allegation. We also hold that inter se private disputes between the parties including matrimonial dispute does not fall within the purview of the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta under the Act and that only such acts, which are actuated by allegation against public servants and the authorities as named under Section 7 of the Act alone fall within the domain of the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be. The discussion, as above, also answers question No.2 in the negative. Question No.3, however, does not arise on the facts and circumstances of the case and would amount to adjudication on hypothetical question. Hence, the said question is left open."

As can be seen from the facts of the present case, the

complaint does not include any allegation and it only

refers to recovery of Rs.30 lakhs from the petitioner.

The 2nd respondent, is no more. An application for

bringing on record the legal representatives was filed and

acknowledgments in respect of service of notice along

with net-tracking are provided, and a Memo to that effect

has also been filed on 04.10.2021.

Therefore, in the light of the aforesaid contentions

that the Lokayukta was not having jurisdiction to

entertain the matter, the proceedings are hereby quashed

with liberty to the complainant to pursue his remedies /