IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM PRESENT : THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE V.GIRI WEDNESDAY, THE 17TH SEPTEMBER 2008 / 26TH BHADRA 1930 WP(C).No. 27469 of 2008(T) -------------------------- PETITIONERS: ------------------ 1. B.S.RAJEEV , MEMBER OF SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. A.A.RASHEED, MEMBER OF SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 3. M.P.RUSSELL, MEMBER OF SYNDICATE, UNIVERSITY OF KERALA,THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. BY ADV. SRI.ALAN PAPALI SRI.GILBERT GEORGE CORREYA RESPONDENTS: ----------------------- 1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA REPRESENTED BY THE REGISTRAR, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM. 2. SUJITH .S.S, THRIVENI, NELLANADU VENJARAMMOODU, NEDUMANGAD, THIRUVANANTHAPURAM DISTRICT. ADV. SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY. FOR R1 THIS WRIT PETITION (CIVIL) HAVING COME UP FOR ADMISSION ON 17/09/2008, THE COURT ON THE SAME DAY DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING: V.GIRI, J ------------------- W.P.(C).27469/2008 -------------------- Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008 JUDGMENT Petitioners, who are members of the Syndicate of the University of Kerala, are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order passed by the Lok Ayukta, directing them to be impleaded in complaint No.572/2008 instituted by the second respondent herein. It was the contention of the petitioners that they are members of the Syndicate elected in that behalf and therefore, they cannot be considered as public servants as defined under Section 2(o) of the Kerala Lok Ayukta Act. Mr.M.K.Damodaran, learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits that the petitioners are therefore, not public servants as defined under the Lok Ayukta Act. Therefore, Lok Ayukta would not derive jurisdiction to proceed against them, even if the complaint filed by the second respondent otherwise satisfies the ingredients of an allegation as defined under the Act. 2. I also heard Mr.George Poonthottam who entered appearance on behalf of the second respondent. W.P.(C).27469/2008 2 Mr.Geroge Poonthottam points out that Section 2(o)(v) of the Act defines public servants and sub clause (v) thereof comprehends a member of a local authority, State or a Statutory body established by law or under the law of the State legislature. According to him, the University of Kerala is a body corporate established by a law passed by the same legislature and the members of Syndicate who are elected, nominated or otherwise would also therefore, be a member of a statutory body contemplated by Section 2(o)(v) of the Act. He contends that, in such circumstances, he would become a public servant as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act. 3. Mr.Damodaran contends that the provision which is really applicable is 2(o)(vii). Therefore, only a person in the service or paid by a statutory body would be a public servant within the meaning of the Act. 4. It is true that the contention raised by the petitioners herein relates to the jurisdiction of the Lok Ayukta to proceed as against them and therefore it might be open, in certain circumstances, for an W.P.(C).27469/2008 3 aggrieved person complaining of lack of jurisdiction of a statutory body in taking proceedings against him to invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 5. But I take note of the fact that Ext.P2 is passed by a high powered statutory body, a judicial forum and obviously competent to take note of and decide any question which affects the jurisdiction of the body to take proceedings against a person who complains of absence of jurisdiction in that regard. 6. In the result, I am of the view that objections now raised by the petitioners can be effectively raised before the Upa Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta would have to decide the question of jurisdiction before further proceeding with the complaint in so far as the petitioners are concerned. 7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the following terms:- W.P.(C).27469/2008 4 (i). Petitioners may appear before the Upa Lok Ayukta in person or through counsel and file their written objections detailing their objections as regards the jurisdiction of the Upa Lok Ayukta to the effect that they are not public servants and therefore, are not comprehended by the provisions of the Act or powers of the Upa Lok Ayukta in that regard. (ii). If such objection is raised, then I am absolutely certain that Upa Lok Ayukta will look into the objections and take a decision thereon before further proceeding with complaint No.572/2008, in so far as the petitioners are concerned. Obviously the complainant before the Upa Lok Ayukta namely the second respondent, would also be entitled to be heard on such objections. V.GIRI, Judge mrcs