Case Note & Summary
The petitioners, Bhiku Anna Tambe and Laxman Anna Tambe, and respondent No.1, Ganpat Anna Tambe, are brothers involved in a pending dispute regarding inheritance of certain agricultural properties. Respondent No.2, a cooperative sugar factory, had passed a resolution not to accept sugarcane from any of the brothers due to their inter se disputes. The petitioners challenged this resolution before the Cooperative Court, which passed an interim order restraining the society from acting on the resolution. Meanwhile, respondent No.1 filed a complaint before the Lokayukta alleging that a Talathi (public servant) had prepared a fraudulent map in collusion with the petitioners, and that based on this map, the petitioners obtained the interim order from the Cooperative Court. The Lokayukta, by order dated 6 December 2019, found prima facie merit in the allegations against the Talathi and directed an enquiry. Additionally, the Lokayukta directed respondent No.2 not to pay the petitioners for sugarcane supplied and instead pay the amount to respondent No.1. The petitioners challenged only this latter direction. The High Court held that the Lokayukta's jurisdiction under the Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971 is limited to investigating allegations against public servants and does not extend to deciding civil disputes between private parties, especially when such disputes are pending before civil and cooperative courts. The court further held that the direction to withhold payments and pay respondent No.1 was made without impleading the petitioners and without affording them any hearing, violating principles of natural justice. Consequently, the High Court quashed and set aside the impugned direction and the consequential letter dated 7 February 2020 issued by respondent No.2. The court clarified that it had not examined the merits of the parties' claims, which remain open to be decided by the appropriate courts.
Headnote
A) Administrative Law - Jurisdiction of Lokayukta - Scope of Investigation - Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971, Sections 2(b), 2(d), 8(1) - Lokayukta empowered to investigate allegations against public servants for abuse of position or corruption, but not to decide civil disputes between private parties, especially when such disputes are pending before civil or cooperative courts. Held that the Lokayukta's direction to the cooperative society to pay sugarcane proceeds to respondent No.1 was without jurisdiction (Paras 14-20). B) Natural Justice - Right to be Heard - Orders with Civil Consequences - Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act, 1971 - A direction that deprives a party of payments for sugarcane supply without affording any hearing violates principles of natural justice. Held that the impugned direction was made without impleading the petitioners and without hearing them, hence unsustainable (Paras 10, 20). C) Cooperative Law - Interim Orders - Effect of Cooperative Court's Order - Maharashtra Co-operative Societies Act, 1960 - Cooperative Court had passed an interim order restraining the society from acting on its resolution to refuse sugarcane from petitioners. Held that the Lokayukta could not override this interim order by directing payments to respondent No.1 (Paras 6, 19).
Issue of Consideration
Whether the Lokayukta had jurisdiction to direct a cooperative society to withhold payments to the petitioners and pay the same to respondent No.1, and whether such direction was violative of principles of natural justice.
Final Decision
The High Court quashed and set aside the directions in the Lokayukta's order dated 6 December 2019 regarding respondent No.2 not making payments to the petitioners and making such payments to respondent No.1. The consequential letter dated 7 February 2020 from respondent No.2 was also set aside. The rule was made absolute with no order as to costs.
Law Points
- Lokayukta's jurisdiction limited to investigating allegations against public servants
- cannot decide civil disputes
- principles of natural justice must be complied with before passing orders with civil consequences
- Section 8(1) of Maharashtra Lokayukta and Upa-Lokayuktas Act
- 1971 bars investigation where remedy exists before court or tribunal
