IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT MADRAS

(Special Original Jurisdiction)

 

W.P.  No.          of 2022

 

K.R. Jayagopi

S/o Krishna Ramanujam

No. 2/203, Massodi Street

Kuthambakkam

Thiruvallur,

Tamil Nadu – 600 124.

…Petitioner

Vs

 

• The Hon’ble Tamil Nadu Lokayukta

Represented by its Registrar

SIDCO Corporate Office, 6th & 7th Floor,  SIDCO Industrial Estate, Guindy, Chennai – 600032.

 

• R. Sakkarapani

Minister for Food and Civil Supplies

Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009.

 

• Thiru I. Periyasamy

Minister of Co-operative Societies

Co-operation, Statistics and Ex-Servicemen Welfare

Fort St. George

Chennai – 600 009

 

• Thiru Md Nasimudeen IAS

Additional Chief Secretary to Government

Co-operation, Food and Consumer Protection Department Secretariat, Chennai – 600 009

 

 

2

 

• Thiru Dr. S. Prabhakar, IAS

Managing Director

Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation

No. 12, Thambusamy Road,

Kilpauk, Chennai – 600 010

 

• Thiru V. Rajaraman, I.A.S., Commissioner of Civil Supplies and Consumer Protection Department

‘Ezhilagam’ Annex Chepauk,

Chennai – 5

…Respondents

 

AFFIDAVIT OF K. R. JAYAGOPI

I, K.R. Jayagopi, S/o Krishna Ramanujam, aged about — years, residing at No. 2/203, Massodi Street, Kuthambakkam, Thiruvallur, Tamil Nadu – 600 124, having temporarily come down to Chennai, do solemnly affirm and sincerely state as follows:

 

1. I am the Petitioner herein and as such, I am well acquainted with the facts and circumstances of the case.

 

2. I submit that I am preferring this writ petition seeking a Writ of Certiorarified Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1^st Respondent in R. No. 3 of 2022 dated 02.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st Respondent to take the complaint on record and conduct a detailed enquiry by issuing notice to all Respondents by following the due process of law laid under The Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 in letter and spirit.

3

 

3. I respectfully submit that the Parliamentary ombudsman at the Centre level

(“Lokpal”) and each State (“Lokayukta”), has been established as an anticorruption authority that scrutinizes and investigate complaints of corruption, misfeasance and mal-administration of public authorities. I state that the establishment plays a pivotal role in keeping a constant check on the acts of such public functionaries. While the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 provides for special courts and provisions for punishment for the offence of corruption, Lokpal and Lokayuktas were specially established to investigate complaints of corruption in order to make public authorities answerable for their unlawful acts and to instil faith and confidence in the public in the working of such functionaries. The establishment of such authorities empowered citizens of the country to directly register a complaint against any public servant at any level for their unlawful acts of corruption and malfeasance and hold them accountable for their actions. I state such establishments’ main objective is to restore faith in Judiciary and Democracy as the Act enables even the common citizen to bring corruption to light by approaching the Lokayuktas established under the relevant State and Central Acts.

 

4. I state that the Government of Tamil Nadu had passed the Tamil Nadu

Lokayukta Act, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as the “Act”) which came into effect on 13.11.2018. I state that the above Act had been established with the object “An Act for the establishment of a body of Lokayukta for the State of Tamil Nadu to inquire into allegations of corruption against certain public servants and for matters connected therewith or incidental thereto”. I state that accordingly a 5-member Lokayukta was constituted under the Act to

4

inquire into corruptions against the public servants and the matters connected incidental thereto. I state that the “Chairperson” who is or has been a Judge of the High Court or a person with twenty-five years experience in anticorruption policy, public administration, vigilance, finance and law. I state that the out of four Members of the Lokayukta two shall be Judicial Members who are or have been a Judge of the High Court or has put in twenty-five years of experience in State judiciary with impeccable record.  I state that the above Lokayukta was established with its members of such high calibre with an impeccable record to discharge their duty to inquire into complaints of corruption at all levels of the government without any fear and powers has been provided in the provision of the Act to the 1^st Respondent with vast powers at their disposal. I state that Lokayukta is vested with vast powers to look into corruption at all levels of the government to ensure fairness and also keep a check on the fiduciary duty of the government while exercising its powers.

 

5. I respectfully submit that I preferred a complaint to the 1^st Respondent herein against several large scale illegal acts of corruption, malfeasance and impropriety committed by the public servants in granting gift hampers to underprivileged, ration cardholders throughout the State during the festival of Pongal in January 2022. The festival of Pongal which is celebrated in the second week of January every year is one of the most prominent festivals in the State of Tamil Nadu. Throughout the years, the Governments of Tamil Nadu have indulged in various welfare schemes of providing gift hampers and/or grains and pulses at subsidised rates to underprivileged, ration cardholders during the festival of Pongal to ensure that rice and other essentials are available to them during such festive occasion.

5

 

6. I submit that on 04.01.2022, it was announced by the Hon’ble Chief Minister that as a welfare scheme during Pongal, to the rune of 2.15 crore ration cardholders in the State of Tamil Nadu would be eligible for Pongal Gift hamper containing 21 food items which are as follows:

 

S. No.	PARTICULARS	QUANTITY
1.	Raw Rice	1 kg
2.	Jaggery	1 kg
3.	Cashew	50 grams
4.	Dry Grapes	50 grams
5.	Cardamom	10 grams
6.	Moong Dhal	500 grams
7.	Ghee	100 grams
8.	Turmeric Powder	100 grams
9.	Chilli Powder	100 grams
10.	Coriander Powder	100 grams
11.	Mustard	100 grams
12.	Cumin	100 grams
13.	Pepper	50 grams
14.	Tamarind	200 grams
15.	Toor Dhal	250 grams
16.	Urad Dhal	500 grams
17.	Rava	1 kg
18.	Wheat Flour	1 kg
19.	Salt	500 grams
20.	Cloth Bag	1 piece
21.	Sugar Cane	1 piece

 

7. I state that it was publicised widely that the Government was expending huge sums and the said welfare scheme would cost around Rs. 1296.88 crores of public money. Furthermore, the said gift items were secured by the Government by issuing Tender notice to various dealers/vendors for the purpose of the said gift hamper.

6

 

8. I respectfully submit that the Government had indulged in various illegal acts of corruption and malfeasance in the administration of the welfare scheme and the same was widely reported in all news dailies. The said scam shook the faith of the people in the State, where it was widely reported that public authorities occupying positions of power had indulged in large scale corruption even in welfare schemes meant for the underprivileged people of the State. Therefore, I made enquiries based on the sources available to me and the following illegal acts of corruption and malfeasance in relation to the welfare scheme were uncovered, the summary of which is given hereunder:

 

17. Only a short e-tender notice on 17.11.2021 was issued for procuring items that claimed to be costing around Rs. 1296.88 crores of taxpayer’s money. The provisions of the Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tenders Act, 1998 and Tamil Nadu Transparency in Tender Rules, 2000 were openly flouted for the sake of the scheme. Identities of most of the successful bidders were not even revealed at any point in time.

 

1. The said public authorities cheated the public by procuring low-quality items at exorbitant prices to intentionally swindle huge amounts of public money into their own pockets.

 

1296. The cost for the scheme was claimed to be Rs. 1296.88 crores intending to cover 21 items each for 2,15,48,060 beneficiaries – therefore, the cost per ration cardholder (beneficiary) would be Rs. 602/-. However, if the same products of the same quantity but the better quality are bought from the open market, the same would only cost around Rs. 485-550 per beneficiary,

7

therefore, the public servants have intentionally swindled Rs. 52 to 117/- per unit/beneficiary roughly ranging between Rs. 111,80,00,000/- to Rs.

251,55,00,000/-.

 

107. Even assuming that a bare minimum of Rs. 50/- per beneficiary has been swindled, a minimum sum of Rs. 107,74,30,000/- (Rupees 107.74 crores approx.) has been swindled by the public servants.

 

1. While all the 21 items could have been secured by the Government from farmers/vendors at Tamil Nadu at market price, there is no rationale as to why most of the items were secured from North Indian Business houses at exorbitant prices.

 

1. Even sugarcane was procured at an exorbitant price of Rs. 33/- when the market price for the same was only between Rs. 12 – 15/- which was already offered by our farmers to the Co-operative societies.

 

1. The procured items did not even bear any mention of expiry dates, therefore, the public authorities intentionally circulated procured and distributed expired items to various members of the public including the elderly, children and pregnant women, for their private gain.

 

1. In some places, not all the 21 items were even distributed. Even the jaggery given was in liquid form in many places and the District Collector of Thiruvannamalai had ordered to replace the same.

 

8

1. The recent incident of a youth ending his own life after he raised concerns over the presence of a dead lizard in the tamarind, depicts the highhandedness of the public authorities in silencing legitimate claims of the public to the extent of causing a human loss in the State.

 

1. Even the Hon’ble Chief Minister directed all ministers, District Collectors, authorities etc. involved in the said welfare scheme to distribute all the items to all ration card holders properly without any default or demur.

 

1. Various members of the public have questioned the Government on such poor-quality products supplied en masse to people in complete and utter disregard to their health and safety.

 

9. I respectfully submit that therefore, I preferred a complaint explaining in detail all the aforesaid instances of corruption and misfeasance with supporting documents which were available with me before the 1^st Respondent herein against the other Respondents and public authorities, thereby a prima facie case was made out against the said Respondents. The contents of my complaint dated 13.01.2022 may be read as a part and parcel of this affidavit. I further state that I had also requested the 1^st Respondent to summon all the relevant documents which were not made available to the public.

 

10. I respectfully submit that the said acts of corruption caused a huge uproar in the State, therefore, the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu himself ordered an enquiry and action against errant officials and also directed officials to blacklist vendors who supplied such low-quality items violating the Tender norms. It was even reported that the State Government has already suspended

9

1. Senior Manager of Tamil Nadu Civil Supplies Corporation (TNCSC) identified as Mr. D. Subramani for procuring poor quality food products in the said scheme after carrying out a detailed investigation.

 

11. I respectfully submit that under such circumstances, the 1^st Respondent herein called for preliminary enquiry of the Complaint on 21.02.2022 before even issuing notice to other Respondents and public officials. I submit that I appeared along with my counsel appeared on 21.02.2022 and produced further additional documents establishing a prima facie case of my complaint and also provided written submissions in this matter, in particular to the maintainability of the complaint under Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018.

Section 13(1) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018 is extracted herein:

 

“13.  Matters not subject to inquiry. – (1) Except as hereinafter provided, the Lokayukta shall not conduct any inquiry under this Act, in the case of a complaint in respect of any action, if such action relates to any matter as follows:-

 

1. action taken for the purpose of investigating crime relating to the security of the State;

 

1. action taken in the exercise of powers in relation to determining whether a matter shall go to a court or not;

 

1. administrative action taken in matters which arise out of the terms of a contract governing purely commercial relations of the administration with customers or suppliers except where the complainant alleges harassment or gross delay in meeting contractual obligation;

 

10

1. action taken in respect of appointment, transfer and postings, removal, pay, discipline, superannuation, actions relating to claims for pension, gratuity, provident fund or to any claims which arises on retirement, removal or termination of service, or other matters relating to conditions of service of public servants;

 

1. grant of honours and awards;

 

1. (any action in respect of which a formal and public inquiry has been ordered with the prior concurrence of the Lokayukta;

 

1. any action in respect of a matter which has been referred to inquiry under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (Central Act 60 of 1952);

 

1. any action relating to a person or Local Body which is under the purview of Ombudsman constituted under section 3 of the Tamil Nadu Local Bodies Ombudsman Act, 2014 (Tamil Nadu Act 27 of

2014).”

 

12. It was specifically submitted before the 1^st Respondent that the instant complaint does not fall under any of the circumstances aforementioned, in particular Section 13(1)(c) of the Act. Section 13(1)(c) provides for nonenquiry of complaint only in relation to administrative action arising out of terms of the contract governing “purely” commercial relations with customers or suppliers. In the instant case, my complaint dealt with corruptive practices committed by public authorities in a welfare scheme aimed at securing essential food commodities to underprivileged, ration cardholders of the State i.e. about 2.15 crore people in the State and not concerning terms of the contract between the Government and supplier. Therefore, the instances mentioned in the complaint did not deal with terms of the contract between

11

the Government and supplier and were not even “commercial” in nature, let alone “purely commercial”.

 

13. I respectfully submit that it was also submitted before the 1^st Respondent that the illegal acts of corruption committed were right from the commencement of the scheme from calling for tenders for the items till final distribution of the items to the public and not just in relation to terms of contracts entered by the Government with any of the suppliers or distributors. It was also submitted that the various members of the public were the victims of such illegal acts of such public officials and such acts led to gross harassment of the public, therefore, Section 13(1)(c) could not be invoked to dismiss my complaint under any circumstances. I state that legislatures went to the pain of expressly adding the word “purely” before the word “commercial” while enacting the Act, further Section 13(1)(c) never intended to limit the powers of the 1^st Respondent as it made it clear that the 1^st Respondent still has Jurisdiction to enquire the matter if the “complainant alleges harassment or gross delay in meeting contractual obligation”. I state that a bare reading of the Section would reveal that the 1^st Respondent can take cognizance of corruption if the subject matter is purely commercial or administrative in nature. I state that the intention of the Act was never to limit the Jurisdiction or take away the powers of the 1^st Respondent to look into administrative or commercial disputes but to arm the 1^st Respondent with teeth and claw to excise its powers if there is harassment or delay even in administrative or commercial disputes in case of harassment and gross delay, hence the powers of the 1^st Respondent is wide and it ought to have invoked its jurisdiction even assuming without admitting that the present disputes fall within a purely commercial transaction or administrative action by the Government.

12

14. I respectfully submit that to my shock and surprise, the 1^st Respondent dismissed my complaint quoting Section 13(1)(c) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act, 2018. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held that the contracts were commercial in nature and beyond the purview of the Act, per contra, the illegal acts of the public authorities were in relation to a welfare scheme aimed to benefit 2.15 crore underprivileged, ration cardholders of the State. The Act has also made a clear distinction of only exempting administrative action arising out terms of the contract of “purely commercial” relations, therefore, the Act ipso facto does not even exempt all commercial contracts and even if the action pertains to “purely commercial” relations, if the same leads to gross delay or harassment, the 1^st Respondent is empowered to enquire into the complaint.

 

15. I submit that the 1^st Respondent dismissing a complaint which reflected the grievances of several people in the State of Tamil Nadu and being widely reported and taken cognisance by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu himself would show that the impugned order of the 1^st Respondent suffers from malafides and mischief. The 1^st Respondent being a statutory authority constituted only to hold public functionaries accountable for their acts of corruption and dereliction of duty, have failed to entertain large scale corruptive practices of countless public authorities affecting 2.15 crore people of the State and Rs. 1296.88 crores of public money.

 

16. Under the above-said circumstances, having no other alternative remedy, I am approaching this Hon’ble Court by way of a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1^st Respondent in
17. No. 3 of 2022 dated 02.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct

13

the 1^st Respondent to take the complaint on record and conduct a detailed enquiry by issuing notice to all Respondents by following the due process of law laid under The Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 in letter and spirit for the following among other:

 

GROUNDS

1. The impugned order is arbitrary, unlawful and contrary to facts and law. The complaint filed by the petitioner does not fall under any of the circumstances mentioned in Section 13, especially Section 13(1)(c).

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has merely reduced instances of corruption of public officials throughout the State in a welfare scheme as a matter of “commercial nature”, thereby refusing to entertain a complaint of large scale corruption where the public officials have not only swindled huge sums of money from the State exchequer but also cheated the public, especially the underprivileged ration cardholders of the State.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent ought not to have dismissed the Petitioner’s complaint on the technical ground of Jurisdiction without even looking into the allegations made therein; while 1^st Respondent being the watchdog of the corruption in the State ought to have enquired into the allegation of corruption, would have restored the People faith in Democratic rule of law as the corruption happened in the State of Tamil Nadu shook the conscience of the people.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent failed to consider that the Petitioner has made a prima facie case on large scale corruption and malfeasance against the Respondents and other public authorities. The said acts were widely objected to by the people

14

of Tamil Nadu due to which the Hon’ble Chief Minister himself has ordered further action. Therefore, the impugned order is per se untenable.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held in para 34 of the impugned order that Government contracts are outside the purview of its jurisdiction, per contra, only administrative action relating to terms of the contract governing purely commercial relations are beyond the purview of enquiry and not Government contracts per se.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent erred in holding that the Petitioner is challenging the Tender process. The 1^st Respondent failed to see the Petitioner filed his

Complaint alleging corruption in the manner and conduct of the Respondents

2 to 6 in bringing the e-tender to procure and supply the items for Pongal Gift Hamper to 2.15 crore ration card holders, the high handed actions of the Respondents 2 to 6 for personal gratification and advancement had caused huge loss to the taxpayers’ money while Respondents 2 to 6 and other private parties pocketed the monies. Under the circumstance, the 1^st Respondent misunderstood the case of the Petitioner that he is challenging the Tender process before the 1^st Respondent not the allegation of corruption is wholly misconceived and liable to be set aside.

 

2. The impugned order suffers from non-application of mind where the 1^st Respondent had merely dismissed the complaint on the ground that there are commercial contracts under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act, per contra, the complaint pertains to large scale corruption involving several Ministers, Collectors, public authorities in relation to a welfare scheme for 2.10 crore underprivileged, ration card holders for distribution of essential commodities

15

costing about Rs. 1296.88 crores. Therefore, the question of applicability of Section 13(1)(c) does not arise at all.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent failed to consider that the Section 13(1)(c) of the Act does not oust the jurisdiction of the Lokayukta on all commercial matters but only in relation to administrative action pertaining to terms and conditions of a contract governing “purely commercial relations” between the Government and the supplier or customer, strictly in terms of entities participated in such contractual terms and conditions of the Commercial Transaction.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held that any decision of the Executive/ Government/ Administration and its instrumentalities and suppliers of commodities as part of its commercial relations and activities resulting in contracts, their terms and acceptance by the Administration would fall under Section 13(1)(c).

 

1. As stated above, the complaint does not pertain to commercial transactions and pertain to corruption in a welfare scheme by public officials. Further, Section 13(1)(c) of the Act does not impose a blanket ban on the 1^st Respondent to not consider any enquiry on any commercial contract entered by the Government except if it is governed by “purely commercial” relations.

 

1. Further, the 1^st Respondent failed to apply its mind that a common man who is affected by the Corruption had approached the 1^st Respondent with the available documents. The 1^st Respondent erred in assuming Section 13(1)(c) would apply while the petitioner would not fall under any of the terms defined under Section 13(1)(c) such as “Supplier or Customer”. Only when a supplier or a customer to the commercial agreement, that too, in relationship with

16

administrative action of the government, then Section 13(1)(c) would be applicable with an exception of gross harassment or delay. Under the circumstances, 1^st Respondent not invoking its inherent jurisdiction is per se illegal.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent failed to consider that the intent of the legislature in adding the word “purely” before the word “commercial” in Section 13(1)(c) in contrast to the interpretation of “commercial”, would indicate that the scheme of the Act provides for the 1^st Respondent to inquire into all complaints except only those actions that involve exclusively commercial relations between the Government and the supplier or customer. Therefore, the involvement of commercial contracts per se does not oust the jurisdiction of the 1^st In the instant case, the complaint pertains to large scale corruption indulged by public authorities in a welfare scheme throughout the State, therefore, the question of applicability of Section 13(1)(c) does not even arise.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent failed to consider that, even if the question involved is of an action governing “purely commercial” relations, Section 13(1)(c) still vests the 1^st Respondent the power to enquire into the complaint if such action leads to gross delay and harassment. In the instant case, even assuming without admitting that the complaint pertains to “purely commercial” relations, the 1^st Respondent is bound to enquire into the complaint since the actions of the public officials has led to gross harassment of the public where sub-standard and unsafe essential commodities have been distributed to people at large and most of the recipients did not even receive all items. Various members of the public raised complaints against the public officials for such malfeasance and

17

corruptive practices and the self-immolation of a boy in Tiruthani who complained about a dead lizard in the tamarind would show that the public officials have, in fact, harassed the public under the garb of welfare scheme and have deprived benefits to the very people the scheme was aimed at.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held that Section 13(1)(c) would not cover alleged harassment to ration cardholders and only covers harassment in meeting contractual obligation alleged by a supplier against the Government/Administration. Even assuming without admitting that Section 13(1)(c) applies, stipulates harassment both to supplier or customer, therefore, ration cardholders who are the recipients and consumers of the items given by the public authorities are customers under the Section 13(1)(c) and would nevertheless be covered under the ambit of the Act.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held that administrative actions of the Government in entering into contracts even for welfare schemes are tantamount to “commercial transactions” merely because such transactions become contracts by acceptance of tenders. It is also erroneously held that such contracts are outside the purview of the 1^st Respondent merely because they are governed by commercial considerations, the terms of which are decided by the Government concerned. As stated above, the complaint does not pertain to commercial transactions and even assuming without admitting that they are commercial transactions, the same does not automatically oust the jurisdiction of the 1^st

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held that even contracts entered by

Government and its instrumentalities for non-profit social welfare activities

18

and schemes would still be commercial contracts since they are entered with private parties for commercial considerations. The mere presence of a private party in a contract does not take away the right of the Petitioner to prefer a complaint or the powers of the 1^st Respondent to decide on the complaint. The rationale adopted by the 1^st Respondent by dismissing any complaint against any action in a contract entered by the Government with any private party is incongruous and directly contradictory to the very scheme of the Act.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent failed to consider that Section 13(1)(c) only pertains to administrative action involving “terms of the contract” governing “purely commercial relations” between the Government and the Supplier or Customer. In the instant case, the complaint deals with corruption from the very inception of issuing short tender notices, awarding of tenders to suppliers whose identities and information was never disclosed, supplying substandard items at exorbitant prices to cheat the public and causing loss to the State Exchequer and not just in relation to terms of the tender as stipulated in Section 13(1)(c) of the Act.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent has erroneously held that Rule 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu

Lokayukta Rules, 2018 (hereinafter referred to as “Rules”) and Section 13 of the Act operate under different circumstances, per contra, both Rule 24(4) of the Rules and Section 13 of the Act stipulate circumstances for dismissal of the complaint before enquiry by the 1^st Respondent. Furthermore, the instant impugned order dismissing the complaint under Section 13(1)(c) of the Act was, in fact, dismissed only by virtue of reference of Registrar under Rule 24 of the Rules. Therefore, dismissal of the complaint and/or refusal of enquiry under Rule 24 of the Rules and Section 13 of the Act go hand in hand and only

19

under the circumstances enumerated therein, the complaint is liable to be dismissed by the 1^st Respondent.

 

1. Similar to Section 13 of the Act, Rule 24(4) of the Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Rules, 2018 provides only four circumstances under which a complaint can be dismissed in limine, which are (a) The complaint does not disclose an allegation which may be inquired by the Chairperson or Members; (b) That the complaint is frivolous, vexatious or not made in good faith; (c) There are no sufficient grounds for inquiring the complaint, and (d)An earlier complaint based on same allegations as those made in the present complaint was previously disposed of. In the instant case, the complaint preferred by the Petitioner does not fall under any of the above said 4 circumstances. The Petitioner has never preferred any prior complaint in relation to the same subject matter before the 1^st Hence, even under Rule 24(4), the complaint is not liable to be dismissed.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent failed to see a High-Level officer had already been suspended based on the enquiry ordered by the Hon’ble Chief Minister of Tamil Nadu. Under the circumstances, the 1^st Respondent would have taken note of the same and inquired into the allegation made by the Petitioner pursuant to the complaint made by him to bring truth into light as only one High-Level officer cannot be a poster boy for corruption from top to bottom indulged in self-gratification and benefited from the welfare scheme meant for poor people of Tamil Nadu.

 

1. The 1^st Respondent did not even look into materials produced by the Petitioner which goes shows that even a common man can procure all the items mentioned in the grocery store at market price, would be far cheaper than what

20

the Respondent authorities who owe a fiduciary duty to the people of Tamil Nadu had procured and distributed establishes prima facie case of the Petitioner.

 

1. The very scheme of the Act is to vest the 1^st Respondent with special and wide powers to investigate complaints of corruption of public officials despite the provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and other ancillary acts being in place. The Act in no way limits the scope of power of enquiry to be exercised by the 1^st Respondent in relation to corruption indulged by public officials in a welfare scheme, therefore, the entire order suffers from nonapplication where the 1^st Respondent has proceeded on the assumption that the Lokayukta would be acting without jurisdiction if the complaint was entertained.

 

1. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the judgment in P. Lokayukta/UPA Lokayukta, A.P. and ors. Vs. T. Rama Subba Reddy and anr. Reported in 1997 (9) SCC 42, the object behind vesting of such wide powers on the 1^st Respondent is to enquire into complaints of corruption made by members of the public in an expeditious manner, to hold derelict public authorities accountable and to instil faith and confidence of the public in the functioning of such public authorities. In the instant case, the refusal of the 1^st Respondent to entertain the complaint under the Act defeats the very purpose of the Act and does not instil faith in the functioning of the 1^st Respondent or the public authorities.

 

1. The judgment rendered by Hon’ble Supreme Court in AIR 1979 SC 1628

(Ramana Dayaram Shetty vs. International Airport Authority of India and

21

ors.) relied by the 1^st Respondent in the impugned order, in fact, expanded the scope of “State” under Article 12 to include any statutory corporation, body or authority which was an instrumentality or agency of the Government. The said judgment did not exempt commercial contracts entered by such instrumentalities of State from judicial review and in fact held that such executive actions arising out of such contracts can be interfered with if the said actions are arbitrary. Hence, the reliance placed by the 1^st Respondent in the said judgment is misplaced and untenable.

 

1. The judgments relied on by the 1^st Respondent in the impugned order have no bearing in the complaint as the same do not relate to the facts and circumstances of the complaint. The judgments relied on by the 1^st Respondent are of general propositions on the powers of Lokayukta and on “commercial contracts”, the facts of which are completely different from the complaint of the Petitioner.

 

1. The petitioner reserves his right to raise additional grounds in the instant writ petition.

 

It is, therefore, most humbly prayed that this Hon’ble Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Certiorarifed Mandamus calling for the records of the impugned order passed by the 1^st Respondent in R. No. 3 of 2022 dated 02.03.2022 and quash the same and consequently direct the 1^st Respondent to take the complaint on record and conduct a detailed enquiry by issuing notice to all Respondents by following the due process of law laid under The Tamil Nadu Lokayukta Act 2018 in letter and spirit and pass such other/further

22

order(s) as this Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case and thus render justice.

 

 

 

Solemnly affirmed at Chennai,                           ]                                                                                                  Before me,

on this the     day of  March , 2022 ]  and signed  his  name in my         ]

presence.                                                   ]

 

ADVOCATE: CHENNAI