IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALA AT ERNAKULAM
WP(C).No. 27469 of 2008(T)
1. B.S.RAJEEV , MEMBER OF SYNDICATE,
... Petitioner
2. A.A.RASHEED, MEMBER OF SYNDICATE,
3. M.P.RUSSELL, MEMBER OF SYNDICATE,
Vs
1. THE UNIVERSITY OF KERALA
... Respondent
2. SUJITH .S.S, THRIVENI, NELLANADU
For Petitioner :SRI.ALAN PAPALI
For Respondent :SRI.M.RAJAGOPALAN NAIR, SC, KERALA UTY.
The Hon'ble MR. Justice V.GIRI
Dated :17/09/2008
O R D E R
V.GIRI, J
-------------------
W.P.(C).27469/2008
--------------------
Dated this the 17th day of September, 2008
JUDGMENT
Petitioners, who are members of the Syndicate of the
University of Kerala, are aggrieved by Ext.P2 order
passed by the Lok Ayukta, directing them to be impleaded
in complaint No.572/2008 instituted by the second
respondent herein. It was the contention of the
petitioners that they are members of the Syndicate elected
in that behalf and therefore, they cannot be considered as
public servants as defined under Section 2(o) of the Kerala
Lok Ayukta Act. Mr.M.K.Damodaran, learned senior
counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners, submits
that the petitioners are therefore, not public servants as
defined under the Lok Ayukta Act. Therefore, Lok Ayukta
would not derive jurisdiction to proceed against them,
even if the complaint filed by the second respondent
otherwise satisfies the ingredients of an allegation as
defined under the Act.
2. I also heard Mr.George Poonthottam who entered
appearance on behalf of the second respondent.
W.P.(C).27469/2008
2
Mr.Geroge Poonthottam points out that Section 2(o)(v) of
the Act defines public servants and sub clause (v)
thereof comprehends a member of a local authority,
State or a Statutory body established by law or under
the law of the State legislature. According to him, the
University of Kerala is a body corporate established by a
law passed by the same legislature and the members of
Syndicate who are elected, nominated or otherwise
would also therefore, be a member of a statutory body
contemplated by Section 2(o)(v) of the Act. He contends
that, in such circumstances, he would become a public
servant as defined under Section 2(o) of the Act.
3. Mr.Damodaran contends that the provision which is
really applicable is 2(o)(vii). Therefore, only a person in
the service or paid by a statutory body would be a public
servant within the meaning of the Act.
4. It is true that the contention raised by the
petitioners herein relates to the jurisdiction of the Lok
Ayukta to proceed as against them and therefore it
might be open, in certain circumstances, for an
W.P.(C).27469/2008
3
aggrieved person complaining of lack of jurisdiction of a
statutory body in taking proceedings against him to
invoke the jurisdiction of this Court under Article 226 of
the Constitution of India.
5. But I take note of the fact that Ext.P2 is passed by a
high powered statutory body, a judicial forum and
obviously competent to take note of and decide any
question which affects the jurisdiction of the body to
take proceedings against a person who complains of
absence of jurisdiction in that regard.
6. In the result, I am of the view that objections now
raised by the petitioners can be effectively raised before
the Upa Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta would have to
decide the question of jurisdiction before further
proceeding with the complaint in so far as the petitioners
are concerned.
7. Accordingly, the writ petition is disposed of in the
following terms:-
W.P.(C).27469/2008
4
(i). Petitioners may appear before the Upa Lok
Ayukta in person or through counsel and file their
written objections detailing their objections as
regards the jurisdiction of the Upa Lok Ayukta to
the effect that they are not public servants and
therefore, are not comprehended by the
provisions of the Act or powers of the Upa Lok
Ayukta in that regard.
(ii). If such objection is raised, then I am
absolutely certain that Upa Lok Ayukta will look
into the objections and take a decision thereon
before further proceeding with complaint
No.572/2008, in so far as the petitioners are
concerned. Obviously the complainant before
the Upa Lok Ayukta namely the second
respondent, would also be entitled to be heard on
such objections.
V.GIRI,
Judge
mrcs