The petition challenged the Lokayukta’s order dated 6 December 2019, directing the cooperative society (Respondent No.2) to withhold payments for sugarcane supplies from Petitioners Bhiku Anna Tambe and Laxman Anna Tambe and to pay the amount to Respondent No.1, Ganpat Anna Tambe, citing an inheritance dispute. The court quashed the Lokayukta’s direction, ruling it was beyond jurisdiction and lacked compliance with the principles of natural justice.

1. Rule Made Returnable
(PARA 2-3): The petition was heard, and the rule was made returnable immediately upon parties' consent.

2. Nature of the Dispute
(PARA 4): Petitioners and Respondent No.1 are brothers in an inheritance dispute over property at Jeur, Taluka Purandar, Pune.

3. Cooperative Society’s Resolution
(PARA 5-6): The cooperative society passed a resolution not to accept sugarcane from either party due to the dispute. Petitioners challenged this before the Cooperative Court, which issued an interim order staying the resolution.

4. Complaint Before Lokayukta
(PARA 8-9): Respondent No.1 accused the Talathi (public servant) of preparing a fraudulent map. The Lokayukta ordered an inquiry against the Talathi and directed payment adjustments favoring Respondent No.1.

5. Jurisdictional Argument by Petitioners
(PARA 10-11): Petitioners argued that the Lokayukta's direction to alter payment was beyond its jurisdiction as they were not parties to the proceedings, violating natural justice.

6. Arguments on Enquiry & Natural Justice
(PARA 12): Respondent No.1 argued that Petitioners were heard in the Talathi inquiry, and thus the Lokayukta's direction was valid.

7. Court’s Analysis of Lokayukta’s Jurisdiction
(PARA 14-17): The court analyzed the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971, stating that the Lokayukta could investigate public servants but not civil disputes between parties pending before courts.

8. Involvement of Other Courts
(PARA 18-19): The court highlighted that the disputes were already pending in civil and cooperative courts, making the Lokayukta’s direction invalid.

9. Violation of Principles of Natural Justice
(PARA 20-21): The court found the Lokayukta’s directive to alter payments without hearing the Petitioners to be a breach of natural justice, warranting quashing of the order.

10. Consequential Orders
(PARA 22-24): The cooperative society’s reliance on the Lokayukta’s order was invalidated. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the inheritance dispute, leaving it open for decision by competent courts.

11. Interim Relief Rejected
(PARA 27): The request by Respondent No.1’s counsel to continue withholding payments was rejected as Petitioners had been deprived of payments for four years without a hearing.

Legal Provisions Discussed

• Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971
  • Section 2(d): Defines "grievance."
  • Section 2(b): Defines "allegation" concerning a public servant.
  • Section 8(1): Limits Lokayukta's jurisdiction when other remedies through courts exist.

Ratio Decidendi

The Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is limited to investigating public servants and does not extend to deciding civil disputes, especially when they are pending in other judicial or quasi-judicial forums. Additionally, issuing directions affecting parties not impleaded in the proceedings violates principles of natural justice.

Subjects:

Jurisdiction of Lokayukta, Cooperative Societies, Natural Justice

Lokayukta, Maharashtra, Cooperative Dispute, Inheritance, Natural Justice, Civil Courts, Jurisdiction, Public Servants