IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE THOTTATHIL B.RADHAKRISHNAN THURSDAY, THE 3RD JANUARY 2008 / 13TH POUSHA 1929 WP(C).No. 27969 of 2006(D) -------------------------- PETITIONER: ------------ SASTHAMCOTTA CO-OPERATIVE AGRICULTURAL AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK LTD.NO.Q 373, SASTHAMCOTTA, REPRESENTED BY THE BRANCH MANAGER, ADOOR BRANCH. BY ADV. SRI.T.R.RAMACHANDRAN NAIR RESPONDENTS: ------------- 1. KERALA LOK AYUKTHA, TRIVANDRUM, REPRESENTED BY ITS SECRETARY. 2. P.V.SIVADASAN, VYSAKH BHAVANAM, THENGAMAM P.O., PALLICKAL, ADOOR. 3. STATE OF KERALA, REPRESENTED BY SECRETARY TO GOVT., CO-OPERATION DEPARTMENT, TRIVANDRUM. 4. M.K.SUKUMARAN, ARM, KERALA STATE AGRL. AND RURAL DEVELOPMENT BANK, KOLLM. BY ADV. SRI.N.DHARMADAN (SR.) SRI.RANJITH XAVIER THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING BEEN FINALLY HEARD ON 03/01/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: WP(C).No. 27969 of 2006(D) APPENDIX PETITIONER'S EXTS: EXT.P1 TRUE COPY OF THE PETITION DATED 16/03/2004. EXT.P2 TRUE COPY OF THE COMPLAINT IN COMPLAINT NO.1551/2005 BEFORE THE LOK AYUKTHA DATED 19/07/2005. EXT.P3 TRUE COPY OF THE ORDER IN COMPLAINT NO.1551/05 DATED 19/07/2006. 2ND RESPONDENT'S EXT: EXT.R2(a) TRUE COPY OF REQUEST DATED 17/08/2006 BY 2ND RESPONDENT. \\TRUE COPY// THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, J. ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ W.P.(C) No. 27969 of 2006-D ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ Dated this the 3rd day of January, 2008 J U D G M E N T The second respondent had availed certain loan facilities from the petitioner, a Co-operative Bank. Alleging that his request to the petitioner for due benefit of Circular No.15/2004, regarding waiver of a portion of interest etc., remained futile, smothered by a demand for bribe, the second respondent filed a complaint before the Lok Ayukta, leading to the issuance of Ext.P3, a plain reading of which will show that no question of lack of jurisdiction was raised by the petitioner before the Lok Ayukta/Upa Lok Ayukta. 2. The learned counsel for the petitioner is right in saying that in the absence of inherent jurisdiction, the authority of the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta would stand circumscribed by the statutory provisions contained in the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act'. He, accordingly, argues that, even if the question of jurisdiction was not raised before the Lok Ayukta, it will be open to the High Court to enter on a judicial W.P.(C) No. 27969 of 2006-D -: 2 :- review of Ext.P3 decision on that count, in exercise of authority under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 3. Be that as it may, it is a sound principle of law that when a duly constituted authority initiates action and that the person proceeded against has a complaint as a lack of jurisdiction, such question ought to be raised before that authority in the first instance. This discipline is also required to ensure that a person does not drag on proceedings to ultimately turn around and, inspite of his participation, raise the plea of lack of jurisdiction. Mere participation may not confer jurisdiction. But, having regard to the nature of jurisdiction conferred on the authorities by the Statute in question, and in view of the quality of appointment to such high office as the Lok Ayukta and the Upa-Lok Ayukta, in my considered view, it should be a matter of discipline that if any person objects to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta or Upa-Lok Ayukta, such issue ought to be placed before those authorities, in the first instance, calling for a decision on such issue. In the aforesaid circumstances, notwithstanding the specific reference made on behalf of the petitioner, to clause (c) of the Second Schedule in the Act, read with Section 8(i)(a) of the Act, rather W.P.(C) No. 27969 of 2006-D -: 3 :- than enter on adjudication of that issue here, I am inclined to relegate the petitioner to raise the issue of jurisdiction before the Upa-Lok Ayukta. In the result, preserving the impugned Ext.P3 order, the petitioner and the other parties to Ext.P2 complaint are relegated to the Lok Ayukta/Upa-Lok Ayukta, for consideration of any plea as to maintainability and lack of jurisdiction, as may be raised by the writ petitioner, provided such issue is raised in writing before the authority under the Act, within an outer limit of one month from the date of receipt of a copy of the judgment. The enforcement of any final action on the basis of Ext.P3 would stand deferred until a decision is rendered on such objections, if raised. If such objections are not raised, the writ petitioner shall obey Ext.P3 within an outer limit of 45 days. Writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. THOTTATHIL B. RADHAKRISHNAN, Judge ms