IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) WEDNESDAY, THE EIGHTH DAY OF JULY TWO THOUSAND AND NINE PRESENT THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32745 of 1998 Between: C.C. Subba Rao S/o. Narayana Old Bus Stand, Near Clock Tower, K.R. Road, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. ..... PETITIONER AND 1 Hon'ble Lokayuktha of Andhra Pradesh, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Director of Medical Education, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. 3 The Director of Indian Medicine and Homeopathy Department, Andhra Pradesh, Hyderabad. .....RESPONDENT(S) Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court will be pleased to issue any appropriate Writ, Order or direction or a writ more particularly a writ in the nature of CERTIORARI to call for the records and to quash the order passed in complaint No. 110/98/B1 dated 18-8-1998 issued by the 1st Respondent herein and to pass such other order or orders as the Hon'ble Court may deem fit and proper in the circumstances of the case. Counsel for the Petitioner:MR.G.DHARMA RAO Counsel for the Respondent No.: GP FOR MEDICAL HEALTH & FAMI.WELFARE The Court made the following : THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE V.ESWARAIAH and THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE P.SWAROOP REDDY WRIT PETITION No.32745 of 1998 ORDER: (per the Hon’ble Sri Justice V. Eswaraiah) This writ petition is filed questioning the order, dated 18-08-1998 passed by the 1st respondent in Complaint No.110/98/B1. By the aforesaid order, the 1st respondent passed the following order:- “…. The Director of Indian Medicine and Homoeopathy is hereby directed to launch a proper complaint against the 1st public servant Sri G.C.Subba Rao, Secretary, Indian Multipurpose Medical Welfare Society, situated in Old Bus-stand, near Clock Tower, K.B.Road, Chilakaluripet, Guntur District. The 3rd public servant is directed to look into the record of investigation in this complaint and the comments of the Director (Legal) and then get the charge-sheet drafted and file it in the concerned court exercising jurisdiction over Chilakaluripet. By 20th October, 1998, the 3rd public servant should inform this Institution as to the action taken by him in this case and file along with his report, the copy of the charge-sheet filed by him.” Pursuant to the said order, the 3rd respondent filed a complaint against the petitioner and the same was registered as Cr.No.285 of 1998 on 15-10-1998 by Chilakaluripeta Town Police Station for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 464 IPC. In view of registration of the said case against the petitioner, the complaint was closed by order, dated 20-10-1998. The said order has not at all been questioned and the action of the 3rd respondent in filing the complaint and registering FIR has also not been questioned. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that Lokayukta has no power or authority to take action against the Society and its Secretary, which was registered under the Societies Registration Act, 1860 or under the A.P. (Telangana Area) Public Societies Registration Act, 1350 Fasli. It is further stated that the Division Bench of this court in W.P.No.23543 of 1997, dated 28-11-2005, set aside the order of the Lokayuktha in Complaint No.161 of 1977, dated 25-07-1997. A perusal of the aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench goes to show that there are no particulars with regard to complaint No.161 of 1977. In the said case, this court only held that Lokayuktha has no control over the private Society and therefore, direction issued by the Lokayuktha against the petitioner therein, which is a private society, is illegal and unsustainable. We have perused the order of the Lokayuktha. The Lokayuktha found fault with the action of the public servant i.e., 3rd respondent in not taking appropriate action against the petitioner, who is unauthorisedly running the Institution and therefore, the Lokayuktha had given direction to the 3rd respondent to launch prosecution against the petitioner. We are of the opinion that whether the petitioner is a party to the complaint or not, it is always open to the Lokayuktha to direct the public servants to take appropriate action against the law-breakers. We are also of the opinion that whether Lokayuktha directs or not, it is the duty of the public servants to take appropriate action against the law-breakers. A perusal of the material available on record goes to show that the petitioner obtained two certificates of Diploma of Allopathic Practitioners and Diploma of Integrated Medical Sciences from a private institute at Tirupathi, which does not actually exist. As the petitioner is cheating the people, a criminal case was registered against the petitioner for the offences punishable under Sections 420 and 464 IPC. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that Lokayuktha rightly issued directions against the 3rd respondent, who is a public servant, to act in accordance with law, and take appropriate action against the petitioner, though he is not a public servant. Therefore, the writ petition is devoid of merits and the same is liable to be dismissed. Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed. There shall be no order as to costs. ________________ V.ESWARAIAH, J _____________________ P.SWAROOP REDDY, J Date: 08-07-2009 Prv