IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE, ANDHRA PRADESH AT HYDERABAD (Special Original Jurisdiction) TUESDAY, THE EIGHTEENTH DAY OF NOVEMBER TWO THOUSAND AND EIGHT PRESENT HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE SRI ANIL R. DAVE and HON'BLE SRI JUSTICE R.SUBHASH REDDY WRIT PETITION No.24920 of 2008 Between: K. Venkateswara Rao, S/o. Sri Krishnam, Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore, Nellore District. ... PETITIONER AND 1 The Institution of A.P. Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta Basheerbagh, Hyderabad. 2 The Nellore Municipal Corporation, Nellore Nellore District, Rep. by its Commissioner. 3 The Mayor, Nellore Municipal Corporation Nellore, Nellore District. 4 The City Planner, Nellore Municipal Corporation Nellore , Nellore District. 5 Koneti Mallika D/o. Molakaiah, R/o. D. No. W.20/557, 4th Lane, Chatala Narasimha Rao Coony, Mulapet, Nellore. ...RESPONDENTS Petition under Article 226 of the constitution of India praying that in the circumstances stated in the Affidavit filed herein the High Court may be pleased to issue a Writ of Mandamus or any other appropriate writ order or direction declaring the orders dt. 29-7-2008 and 24-10-2008 passed by the Institution of A.P. Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta, Basheerbagh, Basheerbagh, Hyderabad in Complaint No. 407/2008/B1 as illegal, arbitrary unreasonable null and void without jurisdiction and violative of Article 14 and Constitution of India and violative of the principles of natural Justice and opposed to the very spirit and object of The Andhra Pradesh Lok Ayukta and Upa-Lok Ayukta Act 1983 and the Rules framed thereunder. Counsel for the Petitioner: Sri A.V. Sesha Sai for Sri B. Koutinya Counsel for the Respondent No.1: Mr. A. Sreedhar Counsel for Respondent Nos.2 to 4: Sri Ravindra Yanamandra The Court made the following: Order: (Per Hon’ble Sri Anil R. Dave, CJ) Being aggrieved by the proceedings initiated by the Hon’ble Lokayukta in Complaint No.4007/2008/B1 dated 29-07-2008, this petition has been filed. It was brought to the notice of the Hon’ble Lokayukta-Respondent No.1, by Respondent No.5, that certain illegal constructions had been put up by Sri I. Anil Kumar Reddy and others on land bearing D.No.16-2-314, Gandhi Nagar, Nellore. In pursuance of the said complaint, the Hon’ble Lokayukta had ordered to make necessary enquiry and ultimately it was found that the present petitioner was responsible because of his negligence or lethargy. In the circumstances, the Hon’ble Lokayukta passed an order whereby Respondent No.2-disciplinary authority was asked to look into the matter and take appropriate action. Being aggrieved by the said order, the petitioner has filed this petition. Learned Advocate appearing for the petitioner has submitted that as the petitioner was not joined as party respondent before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, the Hon’ble Lokayukta could not have issued any proceedings in the matter. In the circumstances, it was suggested to the learned Advocate for the petitioner that it was open to the petitioner to file an application for impleadment before the Hon’ble Lokayukta so that he too can be heard by the Hon’ble Lokayukta. But, for the reasons best known to the petitioner, he does not want himself to be impleaded in the proceedings before the Hon’ble Lokayukta. Looking to the facts of the case, in our opinion, it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has exceeded his jurisdiction by entertaining Complaint No.4007/2008/B1. It is pertinent to note that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has not passed any order imposing punishment upon the petitioner, as he was conscious of the fact that the disciplinary authority has to take appropriate action only after holding an enquiry. The Hon’ble Lokayukta has only directed the disciplinary authority to conduct an enquiry and take appropriate action in the matter. In our opinion, it cannot be said that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has exceeded his jurisdiction and as we do not find any substance in the petition, the petition is rejected. __________________ ANIL R. DAVE, CJ. _______________________ R. SUBHASH REDDY, J. November 18, 2008 MRR