SHILLONG, June 01: The Meghalaya High Court has rejected the objection raised against the Meghalaya Lokayukta being impleaded as respondent in the alleged corruption in the implementation of certain projects undertaken by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council (GHADC).
In an order passed on Friday, Justice W Diengdoh said, “The objections raised by the petitioners respectively are hereby rejected. MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 and MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 are accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits.”
The petitions were filed by state home political department, DGP, SP East Garo Hills, Additional SP and Withing N Sangma.
The AG had submitted the Lokayukta being a quasi-judicial body, is neither a proper nor a necessary party since the Lokayukta is not bound to defend its own order in a related proceeding.
The Court, however, said, “Without looking into any other aspects of the matter, suffice it to say that once it is established that the Lokayukta is a proper and necessary party in the case before this Court, the other contentions of the State petitioner as well as the petitioner in MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 pales into insignificance.”
“In view of the above, this Court finds that the presence of the respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 and respondent Nos. 2 & 3 in MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 that is, the Chairperson and Secretary, Meghalaya Lokayukta are necessary as far as these proceedings herein are concerned,” it added.
The Court said in dealing with the issues raised by the parties herein, is of the opinion that it would be prudent to look into the assertion made by the AG who has referred to a number of provisions from the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 to convince this Court that the body of the Lokayukta is a functioning quasi-judicial one with powers to adjudicate disputes between the parties before it, since a finding in this regard would effectively settle the controversy raised herein.
To the extent of repetition, in the main petition, the challenge of the petitioners herein was against the orders passed by the Chairperson, Lokayukta, Meghalaya, purportedly passed in exercise of the provision of Section 20 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, whereby, on a complaint filed by a private person wherein an allegation was made, inter alia, that in the process of execution of certain projects undertaken by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council(GHADC), there is evidence of corrupt practice and taking of bribe from the complainant therein.
The Lokayukta has then directed the DGP, Meghalaya to cause a preliminary inquiry to be conducted. Thus, being aggrieved by such direction and other consequential orders, the petitioners have approached this Court by way of a writ petition.
The Court said it can be safely said that for proceedings under Section 20 of the said Act conducted by the respondents/Lokayukta, the petitioners have filed the writ petitions making the Chairperson and Secretary, Lokayukta as party respondents, which is now sought to be undone by the prayer made in these instant applications.
Before proceeding further, the Court said it has perused the two Acts in question, that is, the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 and the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014. On comparison, it is found that the contents of the two Acts are almost identical and similar. This similarity is seen while comparing Sections, 11, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28 and other sections, which though not identically numbered, in essence, the meaning and purport are the same. This illustration is given only to come to a finding as to whether the facts and circumstances of this case are squarely covered by the Odisha Lokayukta case (supra).
“Evidently, there exists a similar situation as far as this case and the case of Odisha Lokayukta is concerned as in both cases, the exercise of power by the Lokayukta under Section 20 of the Act to direct for preliminary inquiry was questioned and in the final analysis, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of the Odisha Lokayukta has held that the Lokayukta is a person aggrieved who has locus standi to come before the High Court. In this case, too, the presence of the Lokayukta, that is, the Chairperson and Secretary, Lokayukta are necessary and proper party for adjudication of the dispute between the parties,” it said.
The case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd.(supra) para 13, incidentally cited by both the petitioner and the respondents/Lokayukta as also the case of Alok Kumar Lodha(supra) as well as the case of Ashok Babulal Awasthi(supra) cited by the respondents/Lokayukta all speaks of the plaintiff as the dominus litis, however, the provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was also referred to say that this general rule is subject to this proviso, which has been duly noted by this Court in these proceedings, it further added.
