IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC WEDNESDAY, THE 22ND SEPTEMBER 2010 / 31ST BHADRA 1932 WP(C).No. 29133 of 2010(N) -------------------------- PETITIONER(S): --------------- 1. DEPUTY DIRECTOR OF EDUCATION, IDUKKI, THODUPUZHA. 2. DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICER, DISTRICT EDUCATION OFFICE, THODUPUZHA. 3. STATE TEXT BOOK OFFICER, PADMAVILASAM FORT, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY GOVERNMENT PLEADER SRI.P.N.SANTHOSH RESPONDENT(S): ----------------------- 1. CELINE.T.J, W/O.P.C.VARGHESE, PEDIKATTUKUNNEL (H), MUTHALAKODAM P.O., IDUKKI (DIST)-685 605. 2. THE UPA LOK AYUKTA, VIKAS BHAVAN, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM-695 033. THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 22/09/2010 ALONG WITH WPC NO.29185/10, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ================ W.P.(C) Nos. 29133 & 29185 OF 2010 ========================== Dated this the 22nd day of September, 2010 J U D G M E N T The challenge in these two writ petitions is against Ext.P3 common order passed by the Kerala Lok Ayukta in Complaint Nos.1508/09 and 1510/09. The complaints were filed by the party respondents challenging the liability fixed against them on the allegation that loss was caused to the Government as a result of the latches on the part of the complainants in selling note books. A reading of the impugned orders of the Lok Ayukta show that in terms of the guidelines, note books could be sold by the party respondents only if an indent for supply of the book is placed by the indenting purchasers. On facts, the Lok Ayukta concluded that such indents were not placed, and it was therefore that, the books could not be sold. There is nothing in the pleadings contradicting this finding of the Lok Ayukta. In that view of the matter, I see nothing erroneous on the view taken by the Lok Ayukta. 2. True, the learned Government Pleader has a contention that the Lok Ayukta did not have jurisdiction to WPC Nos. 29133 & 29185/10 :2 : entertain the complaints. Having regard to the fact that the finding of the Lok Ayukta deserves to be upheld for the aforesaid reason, and as no injustice has been caused in these particular cases, I do not think it necessary to upset the findings of the Lok Ayukta for that reason. Therefore, in the peculiar facts of these cases, I am inclined to uphold Ext.P3. Writ petitions will therefore stand dismissed. ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE Rp