Does It Behove The State Government To Treat The Lokayukta In Such A Casual And Irresponsible Manner, Says Allahabad HC

Must Read

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions,...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by...

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus...

Follow us

Facts

 Justice Sanjay Misra was appointed as the Uttar Pradesh State Lokayukta under section 3 of the Act, 1975 vide order dated 29.01.2016 and on his joining on the said post on 31.01.2016 he was allotted House No.22 in the Government Colony, Gautam Palli at Lucknow, which on his request, was changed vide order dated 08.06.2016 and in its place he was allotted another House bearing No. 21 of the same category situated in the same colony, free of rent. However, on 03.12.2017, the impugned order was passed under the signatures of the Special Secretary and State Officer of the Government of U.P. cancelling the earlier allotment and in its place allotting another accommodation of a lower category.

Issue

Whether this petition is sustainable in view of the provisions contained in Section 5(v) of the  Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta  and Up-Lokayukta Act,1975 read with Rule 10 of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta (Conditions of Service) Rules, 1981 and/or the provisions contained in the Act,2016 and the Rules,2016 specially Rule 22 thereof?

Held

The Allahabad HC strongly criticized the Uttar Pradesh Government for the cancellation of a Type-VI accommodation to the Lokayukta and, instead allotting him a Type-V accommodation.

Senior Advocate Jaideep Narain Mathur, appearing on behalf of the Petitioner, argued that the Lokayukta is entitled to the same benefits and facilities as the Chief Justice of the High Court. The cancellation of a Type-VI accommodation clearly violates Section 5(v) of the Uttar Pradesh Lokayukta and Up-Lokayukta Act, 1975 and such order passed by the state is a blatant attempt by it to belittle the office of the Lokayukta.

The state argued that the status of the Lokayukta was akin to that of Chairman/Member of statutory Commission under the State Government, he was only entitled to a Type-V accommodation but since earlier he was allocated a Type-VI accommodation, an order was passed to rectify the error.

The bench comprising Jusctice Devendra Kumar Arora and Justice Rajan Roy rejected the argument of the state and held that the Lokayukta is entitled to rent-free furnished (Type-VI) official accommodation just like the high court judges.

The bench said that the fact that as per section 3 of the Act,1975 the appointment of a Lokayukta is to be made after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court of Judicature at Allahabad and the leader of the opposition in the Legislative Assembly etc. itself goes to show the importance attached to the Office. The bench added that the Lokayukta is function as sentinels to ensure a corruption free Administration.”

The bench added “Even at the cost of repetition we may again point out that in view of the provision to section 5(5), the conditions of service of Lokayukta cannot be altered to his disadvantage after his appointment. Any attempt in this regard by the State would be fraught with serious consequences considering the sensitivity attached to the office as also its independence and impartiality by the statute itself.”

The bench put these questions to be pondered over by the highest functionaries of the State and to decide for themselves-“Is it because of the sensitive nature of the duties performed by the Lokayukta? Is it an attempt to belittle and humiliate the incumbent of the august Office? Does it behove the State Government to treat the Lokayukta in such a casual and irresponsible manner?”

LEAVE A REPLY

Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Latest News

UK Court of Appeal Rules Home Department’s Deportation Policy of Immigrants Unlawful

Britain’s Court of Appeal quashed the Home Department’s deportation policy, declaring it unlawful; criticizing it for being too stringent on immigrants to comply with. Background The...

Inordinate and Unexplained Delay in Considering Representation by Government Renders Detention Order Illegal: Madras High Court

A Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution was filed in the Madras High Court to declare the detention order of the husband of...

Privy Council Clarifies Approach To Winding up in “Deadlock” Cases in the Case of Chu v. Lau

The Judicial Committee of the Privy Council clarified several aspects of the law concerning just and equitable winding-up petitions, as well as shareholder disputes...

Madras High Court Directs Hospital To Submit Necessary Medical Reports to Authorization Committee for Approval of Kidney Transplant

A Writ Petition was filed under Article 226 to issue a Writ of Mandamus to K.G. Hospital, Coimbatore by P. Sankar & V. Sobana....

Punjab Woman Evokes Petition for Protection Fearing Honour Killing

In the case of Divya Mattu and another vs State of Punjab and others, the petitioner, Divya, fearing honour killing against her by her...

Punjab Woman Accuses Punjab Police of Keeping Husband in Illegal Custody and Framing Him in a False Case

In the case of Geeta v the State of Punjab, the petitioner evoked a writ petition of habeas corpus as she claimed that her...

Addition of Words as Prefixes or Suffixes Is an Infringement of a Registered Trademark: Delhi High Court

Justice Jayanth Nath allowed the Times Group to use its registered trademark “Newshour”, in the case of Bennett Coleman and Co. Ltd v. ARG Outlier...

Just Because the Deceased Did Not Have License, Does Not Imply He Was Negligent: Chhattisgarh High Court

In the case of Hemlal & Others v. Dayaram & Others, a Single Bench of Chhattisgarh High Court consisting of Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal annunciated various...

Hoardings Are Movable Property Under Section 2(3) of DMC Act Subject To the Twin Test: Delhi High Court

Delhi High Court in the case of Delhi International Airport v South Delhi Metropolitan Corporation discussed in detail the provision under Section 2(3) of the DMC...

State Cannot Issue Directions on Rate of Charge of Non-COVID Patients in Private Hospitals: Bombay High Court

On 23rd October 2020, the Nagpur Bench of Bombay High court at Nagpur, consisting of Justice R.K. Deshpande and Justice Pushpa V. Ganediwala gave...

More Articles Like This

- Advertisement -