CH. RAMA RAO versus THE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS.

Citation: [1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 667 · Decided: 09-05-1996 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN, G.B. PATTANAIK · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

CH. RAMA RAO 
A 
v. 
THE LOKAYUKTA AND ORS. 
MAY 9, 1996 
[K. RAMASWAMY, FAIZAN UDDIN AND G.B. PATTANAIK, JJ.] 
B 
A.P. Loka)'ukta & UP-Lokayukta Act, 1983. 
Ss. 7(1) and (3)-Power of Lokayukta to take .mo motu action 111 
respect of any action contemplated under the Act-Held, the only condition 
C 
precedent required is to record reasons for initiating suo--niotu inquily divest-
ing the power of the UP-Lokayukta and taking action under sub-section (3). 
Ss. IO and ll-Preliminwy investigation by Lokayukta/UP lokayuk-
ta-Opp01tunity of hearing to public servant-Held, while conducti1igprelimi-
D 
nary .verification of the complaint under sub-section (1) of s.12, the 
investigation is required to be made in confidentiality and on satisfying from 
the investigation of the alleged misconduct further action would be taken-It 
would not be necessary to issue any notice of give opportunity to a public 
se!Vant at prelinzinary verification or investigation--When the lokayukta or 
UP-lokayukta conducts a regular investigation into the complaint, it would be 
necessa1y to give p1ior opportunity to the public servam-Lokayukta was 
justified in not issuing any notice or giving any opp01tunity to the public 
servant at preliminary verificati01.-Lokayukta has power to submit a prelimi-
nary report to take fwther action so as to enable the Lokayukta to conduct 
further investigation7"-Power to sub111it final report lVith recon11nendation to 
take punitive or penal action includes power ta subn1it interini report with 
recommendation to suspend an officer or to transfer him pending fwther 
investigation or the preliniinary verification it.r;elj. 
Administrative Law : 
Natural justice-Opportunity of healing-Held, it would not be neces-
sary to issue any notice or give opportunity of hearing to a public seivant at 
preliminary ve1ification or investigation under the A.P. Lokayukta and UP-
E 
F 
G 
Lokayukta Act, 1983. 
H 
667 
668 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS j 1996] SUPP. 2 S.C.R. 
A 
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Special Leave Petition (C) 
Nos. 10754-55 of 1996. 
From the .Judgment and Order dated 23.4.96 of the Andhra Pradesh 
High Court in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715 of 1996. 
B 
A. Sobba Rao and A.D.N. Rao for the Petitioners. 
c 
The following Order of the Court was delivered : 
These special leave petitions arise from the judgment of the Andhra 
Pradesh High Court made on 23.4.1996 in W.P. Nos. 8274 and 8715/96. An 
order was made by the Ciovcrnment on April 2, 1996 in GOMS Nu. 62 
granting certain amount to the Director of Medical Education for expan-
sion of the works in the Osmania General Hospital, Hyderabad. Two 
generators \Vere to be erecteJ in the hospital. The petitioner \Vas required 
to sub1nit the report on the estimates. In furtherance thereof1 the petitioner 
D 
subn1itted the report to the Superintendent Engineer and tenders \Vere 
called for. It would appear that several people had submitted their lenders 
and the initial estimate was of Rs. 15 lakhs aml mid for one sel of the 
gcnl'.rator. Subsequently, it \Voul<l appear that the esti1nate \Vas increased 
lo Rs. 21 lakhs per set. In that behalf, a anonymous complaint came to be 
E 
made before the Lnkayukla of A.P. constituted under Section 3 of the AP. 
Lokayukta & Cp-Lokayukta Act, 1983, (Act No lI of 1993) (for short, the 
'Act'). Aft::!r conducting preli1ninary investigation) the Lokayukta came to 
submit his interim order dated March 29, 1996 prohibiting purchase of the 
two sets and also by interim dated April 6, 1996 directt:d the Government 
either to suspend the petitioner or to transfer him and to take similar action 
F 
on the Superintendent Engineer as \Veil. The petitioner came to challenge 
the l\VO orders in the above \Vrit petitions. Jn the writ petitions) the 
petitioner challenge the constitutionality of Sections 3, 4, 7 and 12 of the 
Act as ultra vires Articles 14, 16, 19, 21, 226 and 311 of Constitution of 
India. He abo challenged the validity of the interim report. The High Court 
G dismissed the writ petitions upholding their validity. On the question of 
interim report, the High Court declined to interfere with it holding that the 
High Court is devoid of jurisdiction to go into the merits of the interim 
report. Thus, the petitioner has filed these SLPs. 
As regards the constitutionality of the above provisions, in fairness, 
H 
Mr. A. Subba Ran, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, had not 
RAMA RAO v. LOKAYUKTA 
669 
pressed the rnme 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.