ADARSH R IYER S/O N RAMANATHA IYER Vs. LOKAYUKTA REPRESENTED BY REGISTRAR OFFICE OF KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In these petitions, petitioners who appear in person are challenging the order dated 24.08.2017 bearing No. LOK/ADM-1/28/2016-17 passed by Lokayukta, State of Karnataka, rejecting the petitioners' complaint dated 18.06.2016 given to initiate action against 78 members of Karnataka State Legislative Assembly on the ground that they have committed the offence punishable under Section 17(2) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 ('the Act' for short), as their notice of motion given in writing under Section 6(2) of the Act for removal of an Upa-lokayukta failed by operation of Section 6(10) of the Act. The petitioners submit that the members of the Legislative Assembly, by their aforesaid failed notice of motion, put the Upa-lokayukta into disrepute, and therefore, they have committed the offence punishable under Section 17(2) of the Act.

(2.) To examine as to whether failure of a notice of motion given under Section 6(2) of the Act will give rise to the liability under Section 17(2) of the Act, it is necessary to refer to Sections 6 and 17 of the Act; they read as follows:

(3.) As could be seen from Section 6 extracted above, a notice of motion for removal of Lokayukta or an Upa-lokayukta is permitted under Section 6(2) of the Act. Section 6 of the Act is not made subject to Section 17 of the Act. As a notice of motion is permitted in law and as it is not made subject to any liability, failure of the motion does not result in any liability created under Section 17(2) of the Act. In other words, the members who gave the notice of motion cannot be said to have committed the offence punishable under Section 17(2) of the Act. Hence, the order of the Lokayukta rejecting the petitioners' complaint, though for reasons different from the one stated above, cannot be said to be erroneous warranting interference by this Court. The writ petitions are accordingly dismissed. In view of dismissal of the writ petitions, IA.No.2/2018 does not survive for consideration; it stands disposed of accordingly. Petitions dismissed.