IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE ANTONY DOMINIC MONDAY, THE 19TH DECEMBER 2011 / 28TH AGRAHAYANA 1933 WP(C).No. 27305 of 2008(A) ---------------------------------- PETITIONER: ----------------- THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, . SRI.GEORGE POONTHOTTAM RESPONDENTS: -------------------- 1. ASNOV.J.B, JAMUNALAYAM, KUTHIRAKULAM.P.O VEMBAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM, PIN:695615. 2. AMAR ABDUL KHADAR, KOCHUVEEDU, PALAMKONAM, PERUMKULAM.P.O, ALAMCODE, PIN:695102. 3. SAJITH.S, KAILAS, VATTEKAT, UDAYAMPEROOR.P.O, ERNAKULAM,PIN:682307. 4. MANEESH MATHEW, SSKLRA, C-16, S.S.KOVIL LANE, JAWAHAR NAGAR, KOWDIAR, TRIVANDRUM-695 002. 5. THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, REPRESENTED BY ITS REGISTRAR, OFFICE OF THE KERALA LOK AYUKTA, ASSEMBLY COMPLEX, PALAYAM, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. R4 BY ADV. SMT.REKHA VASUDEVAN THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 19/12/2011 ALONG WITH WPC 9844 OF 2009, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WPC NO. 27305 OF 2008 APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXHIBITS P1: COPY OF ORDER DT. 18.4.07 OF THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA P2(A): COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 1ST RESPONDENT P2(B): COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 2ND RESPONDENT P2(C): COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 3RD RESPONDENT P2(D): COPY OF COMPLAINT FILED BY THE 4TH RESPONDENT P3(A): COPY OF ORDER DT. 16.7.2008 IN COMPLAINT NO. 732/2008 P3(B): COPY OF ORDER DT. 16.7.2008 IN COMPLAINT NO. 734/2008 P3(C): COPY OF ORDER DT. 16.7.2008 IN COMPLAINT NO. 742/2008 P3(D): COPY OF ORDER DT. 16.7.2008 IN COMPLAINT NO. 744/2008 RESPONDENT'S EXHIBITS : NIL \\ TRUE COPY\\ PA TO JUDGE JM ANTONY DOMINIC, J. ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` W.P.(C) Nos. 27305 of 2008 & 9844 of 2009 ``````````````````````````````````````````````````````````` Dated this the 19th day of December, 2011 J U D G M E N T ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ The issue raised in these writ petitions are common. Therefore, these cases were heard together and are disposed of by this common judgment treating WP(C) No.27305/08 as the leading case. 2. The challenge in this writ petition is against Ext.P3 series of orders passed by the 5th respondent on Ext.P2 series of complaints. Respondents 1 to 4 were students of B.Tech in colleges affiliated to the petitioner University. From Ext.P2 series of complaints, it appears that, on failure in the main examination, respondents 1 to 4 applied for revaluation of their respective answer papers. Thereafter, they made the aforesaid complaints and by way of specimen, the averments in Ext.P2(a) complaint filed by the 1st respondent herein, is reproduced below; W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 2 : “Respected Sir, I have given the subject 1) System Programming of 5th Semester B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering 03504-Subject Code for revaluation and (2) Computer Design (03601) (3) Computer Graphics (03604) (4) Multimedia System (03606) of 6th semester B.Tech Computer Science and Engineering for revaluation. Since I have a job opportunity, I need to get these papers revalued before August 14- 2008. Please do the needful.” 3. It is on this and similar complaints that Ext.P3 series of orders were passed. These orders are also stereotyped and Ext.P3(a) order reads thus: “The Standing Counsel for the University takes notice. Heard. On a consideration of the facts and circumstances of this case I direct the W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 3 : respondents to take immediate steps to revalue the answer scripts of the complainant and publish the result of revaluation within 3 weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Communicate this Order along with a copy of the complaint to the respondents through special messenger at complainant's cost.” 4. It is submitted by both sides that even before the filing of the writ petition, revaluations were completed and the results were declared. However, University filed the writ petition mainly challenging the jurisdictional competence of the Kerala Lok Ayukta to entertain the complaints and the nature of the order that was passed on such complaints. 5. The exercise of power by the Kerala Lok Ayukta is governed by the provisions of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act, 1999. Section 7 provides the matters which may be investigated by Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok-Ayuktas. This section provides that subject to the provisions of the Act, the W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 4 : Lok Ayukta and one of the Upa-Lok-Ayuktas, as may be nominated by the Lok Ayukta for the purpose, may investigate any action which is taken by or with the general or special approval of those mentioned therein, in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such action. Sub Section (2) provides that Upa-Lok-Ayukta may investigate any action which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, any public servant not being the Chief Minister or a Minister or a Member of the State Legislature or a Secretary or an office bearer of any political party at State level or an officer referred to in Section 2(iii) (d), in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or an allegation is made in respect of such actions or such action can be or could have been in the opinion of the Upa-Lok-Ayukta, the subject matter of a grievance or an allegation. Ext.P3 series of orders were passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta and therefore, these orders could have been passed only under Section 7 W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 5 : (2) of the Act. 6. As already seen, to entertain a complaint, the allegations in the complaint should disclose a “grievance” or “allegation”. These expressions have been defined in Section 2(b) and (h) of the Act, which reads thus: 2(b): “allegation”, in relation to a public servant, means any affirmation that such public servant,- (i) has abused his position as such public servant to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person; (ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by personal interest or improper or corrupt motives; or (iii) is guilty of corruption, favouritism, nepotism or lack of integrity in his capacity as such public servant;” 2(h): “grievance” means a claim by a person that he sustained injustice or undue hardship in consequence of mal-administration:” 7. I have already extracted the nature of the allegations made in the complaints which led to Ext.P3 W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 6 : series of orders. A reading of these complaints show that none of the ingredients disclosing a grievance or an allegation has been made out. In such a situation, the Upa Lok Ayukta could not have entertained Ext.P2 series of complaints and passed orders. 8. Having said that, I should also deal with the complaint of the petitioner regarding the nature of Ext.P3 series of orders. A reading of these orders show that positive directions have been issued to the University requiring it to complete the revaluation within the period specified therein. Once the complaint involving the grievance or an allegation has been received, the manner in which it should be dealt with has been laid down in Section 12 of the Act. 9. The relevant provisions of Section 12(1), (2) and (3) read as under:- “12.Reports of Lok Ayukta etc.- (1) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint involving W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 7 : grievance has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time, as may be specified in the report and also intimate the complainant about its having made the report. (2) The competent authority to whom a report is sent under-section (1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated, as the case may be, to the Lok Ayukta or the Upa-Lok Ayukta the action taken on the report. (3) If, after investigation of any action in respect of which a complaint W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 8 : involving an allegation has been made, the Lok Ayukta or an Upa-Lok Ayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated, either wholly or partly, he shall, by report in writing, communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority and also intimate the complainant about is having made the report.” 10. A combined reading of this provision shows that the power of the Lok Ayukta is to make a report to the competent authority contemplated under sub-sections (1) and (3). These statutory provisions have been fully explained by a Division Bench of this Court in State of Kerala Vs. Bernard [2002 (3) KLT 254]. It is inspite of these provisions that positive directions have been issued to the University as per Ext.P3 series of orders. In the light of the statutory provisions and the principles laid down by the Division Bench of this Court in the judgment referred to W.P.(C) Nos.27305/08 & 9844/09 : 9 : above, the directions issued in Ext.P3 series of orders cannot be sustained. 11. In W.P.(C) No.9844/2009, orders similar to Ext.P3 referred to above have been passed, copies of which are Exts.P3 and P5. For the reasons already explained, these orders are also unsustainable. I also find merit in the contention of the University that the Lok Ayukta should not have passed interim orders, which are in the nature of final orders and thus grant final relief at an interlocutory stage. 12. Be that as it may, having regard to the fact that the revaluations are already completed, I do not wish to upset the same by quashing the impugned orders. Therefore, clarifying the legal position as above, these writ petitions are disposed of. Sd/- (ANTONY DOMINIC, JUDGE) aks/