- (1.) A complaint by an individual to the Lokayukta was that the property belonging to the Municipal Committee was wrongfully sold by the present petitioner in connivance with the members of the Municipal Committee. The petitioner is aggrieved that the Lokayukta has ordered registration of a complaint, for investigation to be made and report to be given within three months under Section 17(2) of the Lokayukta Act.
(2.) The main grievance is that he was not involved in any investigation by the Lokayukta. The argument is untenable, for, the Act does not contemplate any detailed enquiry than the fact that the complaint is lodged against the public servant and by hearing the complaint, the Lokayukta is prima facie of the view that a case is made for registration of a complaint and for investigation. In this case, the Lokayukta has relied on the report of the Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Firozepur Jhirka dated 06.09.2013 that says that a precious piece of land belonging to the Municipal Committee has been disposed of by private persons in connivance with the public authorities. The issue of whether the property sold was really the property of the petitioner or it was the property belonging to the Municipal Committee cannot be decided by the Lokayukta nor by this Court. That is precisely the reason why the enquiry is directed to be conducted on a prima facie proof available that there had been some unlawful acts of public servants.
(3.) The counsel argues that the complaint has been directed to be registered without affording an opportunity to the petitioner to explain his case. The scheme of the Act itself does not contemplate such a procedure and it will be open to the Lokayukta to either to call upon the individual against whom the complaint is filed or may direct the investigation on prima facie proof of materials available before him. The petition is premature and the petitioner will be at full liberty to point out before the enquiry which is ordered to be undertaken on registration of a complaint that the property belongs to him and that there was no fraud or illegality in effecting a sale of property of what he claims to be his own. Hence, no intervention is possible.;