JUDGMENT
B. Sudershan Reddy, J.
1. We have elaborately heard the learned Senior Counsel, Sri N. Subba Reddy, appearing on behalf of the petitioners; Sri M.V.S. Suresh Kumar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the first respondent and Sri Vilas V. Afzalpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the second respondent.
2. The second respondent-Associated Engineering Enterprises filed a complaint against the petitioners herein before the Upa-Lokayukta complaining that they, without any justification whatsoever, denied the payments that were legitimately due to it for the work done by it relating to widening of bridge near Fever Hospital. It was urged that there is an abnormal delay in settlement of claims and that there was balance of Rs.14.50 lakhs due to the second respondent-firm. The second respondent-firm claimed various amounts under various heads and sought for a direction from Upa- Lokayukta as against the petitioners herein to pay the amounts.
3. The Upa-Lokayukta having received the said complaint called for the reports from the petitioners herein and the petitioners herein have accordingly submitted a joint report offering their para-wise remarks to each of the allegations levelled against them.
4. The Upa-Lokayukta having received the report of the petitioners-officers found that there is no dispute about the interim payments made to the respondent-firm. The Upa-Lokayukta did not agree with the plea taken by the petitioners herein that the reason for not finalising the bill and making the payment of balance amount was on account of seizure of records including the works in question by the vigilance authorities.
5. Having regard to the totality of the facts and circumstances, the Upa-Lokayukta directed the petitioners herein to make certain payments within the stipulated time to the respondent-firm. The petitioners invoked the extraordinary jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India and challenged the order passed by the Upa -Lokayukta on various grounds.
6. Sri N. Subba Reddy, learned Senior Counsel mainly contended that the Upa-Lokayukta has no jurisdiction or authority whatsoever under law to issue such directions compelling the petitioners herein to pay the specified amounts to the respondent-firm.
7. Sri Vilas V. Afzalpurkar, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-firm, contended that the Upa-Lokayukta having closed the investigation against the petitioners herein in its discretion thought it fit to issue necessary directions directing the petitioners herein to pay the admitted amounts and in such view of the matter the petitioners are in no manner aggrieved by the order passed by the Upa-Lokayukta. They are not the aggrieved persons within the meaning of Article 226 of the Constitution of India. The writ petition, according to the learned counsel for the second respondent-firm, deserves dismissal.
8. We have given our anxious consideration to the rival submissions made during the course of hearing of this writ petition.
9. We are unable to find any provision in the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta & Upa-Lokayukta Act, 1983 (for short ‘the Act’), which enables and clothes jurisdiction upon the Upa-Lokayukta to issue any such directions as the one issued in the instant case. It is no doubt true that Section 7 of the Act enables the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta to investigate into any action which includes inaction which is taken by, or with the general or specific approval of, or at behest of,-
(i) a Minister or a Secretary; or
(ii) a Member of either House of the State Legislature; or
(iii) a Mayor of the Municipal Corporation constituted by or under the relevant law for the time being in force; or
(iv) any other public servant, belonging to such class or section of public servants, as may be notified by the Government in this behalf after consultation with the Lokayukta in any case where a complaint involving an allegation is made in respect of such action, or such action can be or could have been, in the opinion of the Lokayukta, the subject of an allegation.
10. Section 2 (b) of the Act defines “allegation” in relation to a public servant means any affirmation that such public servant,-
(i) has abused his position as such, to obtain any gain or favour to himself or to any other person, or to cause undue harm or hardship to any other person;
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such public servant by improper or corrupt motive and thereby caused to the State or any member or section of the public; or
(iii) is guilty of corruption, or lack of integrity in his capacity as such Public servant.
11. In the instant case, the Upa-Lokayukta having made the preliminary verification refused to investigate into the complaint involving allegations against the petitioners herein. It is a different matter altogether that Upa-Lokayukta, if a case was made out, could have continued investigation into the allegations made against the petitioners in respect of the action taken by them and on such investigation if it was found that the allegations were substantiated either wholly or partly could have submitted a report in writing indicating his findings and recommendations to the competent authority.
12. But in the case on hand, the Upa-Lokayukta having found that no case is made out for investigation against the petitioners herein instead of closing the matter issued the impugned directions compelling the petitioners herein to pay certain amounts to the second respondent-firm. The impugned order, in our considered opinion, is totally ultra vires and it suffers from incurable legal infirmities and jurisdictional errors. There is no provision under the Act enabling the Upa-Lokayukta to grant such relief as has been granted in the instant case. It is a clear case of exercise of jurisdiction not vested in the authority by the statute. The impugned order is liable to be quashed and the same is accordingly quashed.
13. The writ petition is accordingly allowed. No order as to costs.
14. This order, however, shall not preclude the second respondent herein to avail such remedies as may be available to it in law and in case such remedy is sought to be availed, the same may have to be considered on its own merits uninfluenced by any of the observations made in this order.