A.V. Ramana, v. The State Of Andhra Pradesh

HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE C. PRAVEEN KUMAR AND HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE N.BALAYOGI WRIT PETITION No.42359 of 2017 ORDER: (Per Hon'ble Sri Justice C.Praveen Kumar) 1) The present Writ Petition came to be filed questioning the order of the second respondent in refusing to take cognizance of the matter, as illegal, arbitrary and un-constitutional. 2) The facts in issue are as under:

The petitioner herein claiming himself to be a social service person and State Secretary of Janatadal (U), filed the writ petition, stating that the District Collector, Krishna District, in his capacity as Joint Secretary of Civil Services Institute, sent a letter dated 27.12.2016 to the Government for conducting New Year event on 31.12.2016, for the Civil Service/ HODs, together along with other dignitaries. Pursuant thereto, G.O.Rt.No.223, Government of Andhra Pradesh, General Administration (SCX) Department, dated 03.02.2017, came to be issued. Accordingly, administrative sanction for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ - was accorded to organize the New Year Event on 31.12.2016, at Haritha Berm Park Hotel, Vijayawada, by the A.P.Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Vijayawada. The heads under which the expenditure has to be debited were also mentioned in the said G.O. Immediately, thereafter, the petitioner, lodged a complaint before the Lokayukta, seeking the said authority to conduct an

enquiry into the matter; punish the culprits and recover an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ - from all the officers. No cognizance was taken on the said complaint vide order dated 05.09.2017, which is challenged in this writ petition.

3) Learned counsel for the petitioner mainly submits that very issuance of G.O. by the Government sanctioning an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ - for celebrating New year Event on 31.12.2016, is nothing but sheer waste of public money, more so, where the State is in dearth of funds. He pleads that the said act amounts to misappropriation of public funds and hence pleads that suitable action may be initiated against the culprits. 4) It is to be noted here that granting administrative sanction for an amount of Rs.20,00,000/ - towards organizing a New Year event on 31.12.2016 by the Andhra Pradesh Tourism Development Corporation Limited, Vijayawada, is the decision of the Government, which came to be issued through G.O.Rt.No.223, dated 03.02.2017. If really, the petitioner is aggrieved by the said action, his remedy may lie elsewhere, but definitely, the Hon'ble Lokayukta cannot address to the reliefs sought for by the petitioner, more so, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court in Dr.R.G.Sunil Reddy v. A.P.Lokayuktha, Hyderabad and others1.

1 2015(6) ALD 302 (FB)

5) The Full Bench of this Court in Dr.R.G.Sunil Reddy's case (one supra), after considering the provisions of law extracted the following questions for consideration:

a. Whether A.P.Lokayuktha has jurisdiction to entertain a complaint, which does not involve an allegation, or a complaint regarding nonimplementation of an order of a Magistrate in a matrimonial dispute between a wife and husband, or any other dispute inter se private individuals, and pass consequential orders?

b.

Whether the A.P.

Lokayukta can issue directions or pass an order directly against the persons mentioned in clauses (i) to (iv) of Section 7(1) of the Act ?

c. Whether A.P. Lokayukta can take action suo motu under the Act?

After considering all the provisions of law, the Full Bench of this Court held as under:- " 20. 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 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."

6) Since the request of the petitioner in the complaint, relates to punishment to be imposed, recovery of Rs.20,00,000/ - from the erred officers and also for holding a thorough enquiry into these aspects, which in our view is beyond the competence of the Hon'ble Lokayukta, in view of the Full Bench Judgment of this Court, referred to above. Hence, we see no grounds to interfere with the order passed by the Hon'ble Lokayuktha. 7) Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed.

8) There shall be no order as to costs. Miscellaneous Petitions, pending if any in this Writ Petition shall stand closed. ___________________ C. PRAVEEN KUMAR, J _____________ N.BALAYOGI, J 04.01.2018 gkv