# JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD ) & ORS v. STATE OF M.P. & ORS

- **Citation:** [2014] 3 S.C.R. 242
- **Court:** Supreme Court of India
- **Decided:** 2014-02-25
- **Bench:** P. Sathasivam, CJI. RANJAN GOGOi, Shiva Kirti Singh
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/supreme-court-of-india/justice-ripusudan-dayal-retd-ors-v-state-of-m-p-ors-29893
- **Pages:** 47

## Headnote

MADHYA
PRADESH
LOKAYUKT
EVAM
C UPLOKAYUKT ADHINIYAM, 1981:
s.2(g) of 1981 Act rlw s.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption
Act - 'Public servant' - Complaint to Lokayukt regarding
irregularities in certain construction works - Case registered
0 by SPE, Lokayukt Administration against Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha and other officers -
- Notice by Secretary Vidhan Sabha alleging breach of
privilege of Vidhan Sabha - Held: Inquiry or investigation into
an allegation of corruption against some officers of the
E Legislative Assembly cannot be said to be interfering with the
legislative functions of the Assembly - Officers working under
the office of the Speaker are also public servants within the
meaning of s.2(g) of the Lokayukt Act and s. 2 (c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the Lokayukt and
his officers are entitled and duty bound to make inquiry and
F investigation into the allegations made in any complaint filed
before them - Lokayukt organization has not made any inquiry
against the Members of the Legislative Assembly or the
Speaker or about their conduct -- Assembly does not enjoy
any privilege of a nature that may have the effect of restraining
G any inquiry or investigation against Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Legislative Assembly.
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
H
242
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
243
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Art. 32 rlw Art. 142 - On a complaint alleging irregularities
A
in certain construction works, after inquiry, case registered by
SPE, Lokayukt Organisation against Secretary and Deputy
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha and other officers - Notice by
Secretary Vidhan Sabha to Lokayukt alleging breach of
privilege of Vidhan Sabha - Writ petition by Lokayukt - Held:
B
Maintainable --For the application of provisions of Lokayukt
Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act, jurisdiction of Lokayukt
or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for
all public servants and no privilege is available to the officials
and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more than c
an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the said Acts
apply - Privileges do not extend to the activities undertaken
outside the House on which the legislative provisions would
apply without any differentiation -- The action taken by
petitioners under the said Act cannot constitute a breach of 0
privilege of Legislative Assembly -- The impugned letters!
notices are quashed -- Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam
Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.
s. 11 (2) - Proceedings before Lokauykta - Held: Any
'
proceeding before Lokayukt shall be deemed to be a judicial
E
proceeding within the meaning of ss. 193 and 228 /PC and
as per s. 11 (3), the Lokayukt is deemed to be a court within
the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Central
Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment Act, 1947
-- Procedures and Conduct of Business Rules of the Madhya
F
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha - Rule 164.
On 22.12.2006, a complaint was filed alleging
irregularities in certain construction works under the
control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. After receiving
G
information from the Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department, petitioner No. 2, a member of the M.P. Higher
Judicial Service on deputation as Legal Advisor with
Lokayukt, found that it was a fit case to be sent to the
Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 3 S.C.R.
A Organisation for taking action in accordance with law.
Petitioner No.1 was in agreement with the said opinion.
Thereafter, Crime Case No. 33/07 was registered against
the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No.10), Deputy
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator, the
s Superintending
Engineer,
the
Capital
Project
Administration and the Contractors on 06.10.2007. After
registration of the case, petitioner No.1 received the
impugned letters dated 15.10.2007 and 18.10.2007
alleging breach of privilege under Procedures and
c Conduct of. Business Rules 164 of the

## Text

_Characters 0–39,912 of 87,367. This is a partial read: ask again with offset=39912 for what follows._

A
8
[2014] 3 S.C.R. 242
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD ) & ORS.
v.
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
(Writ Petition (Civil) No. 613 of 2007)
FEBRUARY 25, 2014
[P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. RANJAN GOGOi AND
SHIVA KIRTI SINGH, JJ.]
MADHYA
PRADESH
LOKAYUKT
EVAM
C UPLOKAYUKT ADHINIYAM, 1981:
s.2(g) of 1981 Act rlw s.2(c) of Prevention of Corruption
Act - 'Public servant' - Complaint to Lokayukt regarding
irregularities in certain construction works - Case registered
0 by SPE, Lokayukt Administration against Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha and other officers -
- Notice by Secretary Vidhan Sabha alleging breach of
privilege of Vidhan Sabha - Held: Inquiry or investigation into
an allegation of corruption against some officers of the
E Legislative Assembly cannot be said to be interfering with the
legislative functions of the Assembly - Officers working under
the office of the Speaker are also public servants within the
meaning of s.2(g) of the Lokayukt Act and s. 2 (c) of
Prevention of Corruption Act and, therefore, the Lokayukt and
his officers are entitled and duty bound to make inquiry and
F investigation into the allegations made in any complaint filed
before them - Lokayukt organization has not made any inquiry
against the Members of the Legislative Assembly or the
Speaker or about their conduct -- Assembly does not enjoy
any privilege of a nature that may have the effect of restraining
G any inquiry or investigation against Secretary or Deputy
Secretary of Legislative Assembly.
CONSTITUTION OF IND/A, 1950:
H
242
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
243
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
Art. 32 rlw Art. 142 - On a complaint alleging irregularities
A
in certain construction works, after inquiry, case registered by
SPE, Lokayukt Organisation against Secretary and Deputy
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha and other officers - Notice by
Secretary Vidhan Sabha to Lokayukt alleging breach of
privilege of Vidhan Sabha - Writ petition by Lokayukt - Held:
B
Maintainable --For the application of provisions of Lokayukt
Act, and Prevention of Corruption Act, jurisdiction of Lokayukt
or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment is for
all public servants and no privilege is available to the officials
and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more than c
an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the said Acts
apply - Privileges do not extend to the activities undertaken
outside the House on which the legislative provisions would
apply without any differentiation -- The action taken by
petitioners under the said Act cannot constitute a breach of 0
privilege of Legislative Assembly -- The impugned letters!
notices are quashed -- Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam
Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981.
s. 11 (2) - Proceedings before Lokauykta - Held: Any
'
proceeding before Lokayukt shall be deemed to be a judicial
E
proceeding within the meaning of ss. 193 and 228 /PC and
as per s. 11 (3), the Lokayukt is deemed to be a court within
the meaning of Contempt of Courts Act, 1971 -- Central
Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment Act, 1947
-- Procedures and Conduct of Business Rules of the Madhya
F
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha - Rule 164.
On 22.12.2006, a complaint was filed alleging
irregularities in certain construction works under the
control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. After receiving
G
information from the Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department, petitioner No. 2, a member of the M.P. Higher
Judicial Service on deputation as Legal Advisor with
Lokayukt, found that it was a fit case to be sent to the
Special Police Establishment (SPE) of the Lokayukt
H
244
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 3 S.C.R.
A Organisation for taking action in accordance with law.
Petitioner No.1 was in agreement with the said opinion.
Thereafter, Crime Case No. 33/07 was registered against
the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No.10), Deputy
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator, the
s Superintending
Engineer,
the
Capital
Project
Administration and the Contractors on 06.10.2007. After
registration of the case, petitioner No.1 received the
impugned letters dated 15.10.2007 and 18.10.2007
alleging breach of privilege under Procedures and
c Conduct of. Business Rules 164 of the Madhya Pradesh
Vidhan Sabha against him and the officers of the Special
Police Establishment. By letter dated 23.10.2007, the
Secretary, Lokayukt explained the factual position stating
that no case of breach of privilege was made out and he
0 also pointed out that neither any complaint had been
received against the Speaker nor any inquiry was
conducted by the Lokayukt Organization against him nor
his name was found in the FIR. On 26.10.2007, the
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, respondent No.4, sent six
letters .stating that the reply dated 23.10.2007 was not
E acceptable and that individual replies should be sent by
each of the petitioners. Aggrieved, the petitioners filed the
instant writ petition.
F
Allowing the petition, the Court
HELD:
Maintainability of the writ petition under Art. 32 of the
Constitution:
G
1. If it is established that the proposed actions are not
permissible involving infringement of Arts. 14 and 21 of
the Constitution, this Court is well within its power to
pass appropriate order in exercise of its jurisdiction
under Arts. 32 and 142 of the Constitution. Further, if the
H petitioners are compelled to face the privilege
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
245
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
proceedings before the Vidhan Sabha and that too in
A
spite of the fact that no proceeding was initiated against
the Speaker or Members of the House but only relating
to the officers in respect of. contractual matters, and if
urgent intervention is not sought for by exercising
extraordinary jurisdiction, undoubtedly, it would cause
B
prejudice to the petitioners. This Court, therefore, holds
that writ petition under Art. 32 is maintainable. [para 2930] [272-G-H; 273-A-C]
The Bengal Immunity Company Limited vs. The State C
of Bihar and Others, (1955) 2 SCR 603, East India
Commercial Co., Ltd., Calcutta and Another vs. The Collector
of Customs, Calcutta, [1963] 3 SCR 338, and Kiran Bedi &
Ors. vs. Committee of Inquiry & Anr. (1989) 1 SCR 20 -
referred to.
2.1 Under the provisions of s. 39(1)(iii) of the Code
of Criminal Procedure, 1973, every person who is aware
D
of the commission of an offence under the Prevention of
Corruption Act is duty bound to give an information
available with him to the police. Every citizen, who has
E
knowledge of the commission of a cognizable offence,
has a duty to lay information before the police and to
cooperate with the investigating officer who is enjoined
to collect the evidence. [para 68] (288-E-G]
2.2 Petitioner No. 1 is the Lokayukt appointed under
F
the provisions of the Madhy Pradesh Lokayukt Act Evam
Uplokayukt Adhiniyam, 1981 (Lokayukt Act), exercising
powers and functions as provided under Lokayukt Act.
In the course of the performance of the said functions,
the Lokayukt Organization received the complaint in
G
question regarding certain irregularities in the award of
contracts. Petitioner Nos. 1 and 2, therefore, conducted
preliminary inquiry in the matter and on finding that a
prima facie case under the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1980 was made out, the matter was referred to the SPE
H
246
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A established under the provisions of the Madya Pradesh
Special Police Establishment Act, 1947 to be dealt with
further, and thereafter, a case was registered by the said
Establishment under the provisions of the Prevention of
Corruption Act. [para 32) [273-D-G]
B
2.3 In the matter of the application of laws,
particularly, the provisions of the Lokayukt Act and the
Prevention of Corruption Act, insofar as the jurisdiction
of the Lokayukt or the SPE established under the MP
C Special Establishment Act is concerned, all public
servants except the Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of
the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha for the purposes of
the L.okayukt Act fall in the same category and cannot
claim any privilege more than an ordinary citizen to
whom the provisions of the said Acts apply. [para 36)
D [275-D-F]
2.4 The basic concept is that the privileges are those
rights without which the House cannot perform its
legislative functions. They do not exempt the Members
E from their obligations under any statute which continue
to apply to them like any other law applicable to ordinary
citizens. Thus, enquiry or investigation into an allegation
of corruption against some officers of the Legislative
Assembly cannot be said to be interfering with the
F legislative functions of the Assembly. No one enjoys any
privilege against criminal prosecution. The privileges are
available only insofar as they are necessary in order that
the House may freely perform its functions but do not
extend to the activities undertaken outside the House on
G which the legislative provisions would apply without any
differentiations. [para 36 and 41) [275-F-G; 278-C-D]
Raja Ram Pal vs. Hon'ble Speaker, Lok Sabha and
Others, 2007 (1) SCR 317 = (2007) 3 SCC 184, A. Kunjan
Nadar vs. The State, AIR 1955 Travancore-Cochin 154 -
H referred to.
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
247
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
2.5 The officers working under the office of the Speaker
A
are also public servants within the meaning of s.2(g) of the
Lokayukt Act ands. 2 (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
and, therefore, the Lokayuktand his officers are entitled and
duty bound to make inquiry and investigation into the
allegations made in any complaint f!led before them. As
B
such, the initiation of action does not and cannot amount
to a breach of privilege of the Legislative Assembly, which
has itself conferred powers in the form of a statute to
eradicate the menace of corruption. It is, thus, clear that, no
privilege is available to the Legislative Assembly to give c
immunity to them against the operation of laws. [para 5455] [284-G-H; 285-C]
Dasaratha Deb case (1952), the Committee of PrivilegesParliament Secretariat Publication, July 1952, 45th Report of
the Committee of Privileges of the Rajya Sabha dated 30th
D
November, 2000 - referred to.
2.6 In the instant matter~, the petitioners have not
made any inquiry against the members of the Legislative
Assembly or the Speaker or about their conduct and,
E
therefore, the complaints made against the petitioners by
some of the members of the Legislative Assembly were
completely uncalled for, illegal and unconstitutional. By
carrying out investigation on a complaint received, the
petitioners merely performed their statutory duty and did r
not in any way affect the privileges which were being
enjoyed by the Assembly and its members. The action of
the petitioners did not interfere in the working of the
House and as such there are no grounds for issuing a
notice for the breach of Privilege of the Legislative G
Assembly. The Speaker has no jurisdiction to entertain
any such complaint, which is not even maintainable. [para
56, 60] [285-D-E; 286-E-F]
2.7 Also, in terms of the provisions of s. 11(2) of the
Lokayukt Act, any proceeding before the Lokayukt shall
H
248
SUPREM~ COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the
meaning of ss. 193 and 228 IPC and as per s. 11 (3), the
Lokayukt is deemed to be a court within the meaning of
Contempt of Courts Act, 1971. Further, the petitioners
have merely made inquiry within the scope of the
B provisions of the Act and have not done anything against
the Speaker personally. [para 61) [286-F-G]
2.8 This Court is of the view that the action being
investigated by the petitioners has nothing to do with the
proceedings of the House and as such the said action
C cannot constitute any breach of privilege of the House
or its members. [para 65) [287-G-H; 288-A]
2.9 It is made clear that privileges are available only
insofar as they are necessary in order that House may
D freely perform its functions. For the application of laws,
particularly, the provisions of the Lokayukt Act, and the
Prevention of Corruption Act, the jurisdiction of the
Lokayukt or the Madhya Pradesh Special Police
Establishment is for all public servants (except the
E Speaker and the Deputy Speaker of the Madhya Pradesh
Vidhan Sabha) and no privilege is available to the officials
and, in any case, they cannot claim any privilege more
than an ordinary citizen to whom the provisions of the
said Acts apply. Privileges do not extend to the activities
F undertaken outside the House on which the legislative
provisions would apply without any differentiation. The
impugned letters/notices are quashed. [para 66 and 69]
[288-A-D, G]
Case Law Reference:
G
[1955] 2 SCR 603
referred to
para 27
[1963] 3 SCR 338
referred to
para 28
[1989] 1 SCR 20
referred to
para 29
H
2007 (1) SCR 317
referred to
para 45
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
249
STATE OF M.P. & ORS.
AIR 1955 154
referred to
para 46
CIVIL ORIGINAL JURISDICTION : Writ Petition (Civil) No.
613 of 2007.
Under Article 32 of the Constitution of India.
K.K. Venugopal, Sushil Kr. Jain, Puneet Jain, Ashish
Kumar,Chhaya Kirti, Ankur Talwar, Amit Dayal, Pratibha Jain
for the Petitioners.
A
B
Mishra Saurabh, Vanshaja Shukla, Ankit Lal, C.D. Singh,
C
Sunny Chowdhary for the Respondents.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
P. SATHASIVAM, CJI. 1. The present writ petition, under
Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the o
petitioners challenging the validity of certain letters issued by
Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin - Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent
No.4 herein) on various dates against them with regard to a
case registered by the Special Police Establish.ment (SPE) of
the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan
E
Sabha Secretariat as well as against the concerned officials
of the Capital Project Administration-the Contractor Company
alleging irregularity in the construction work carried out in the
premises of Vidhan Sabha.
2. It is relevant to mention that Petitioner No.1 herein was
F
the Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh appointed under
·the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam
Uplokayukt Act, 1981 (hereinafter referred to as "the Lokayukt
Act"). Petitioner No.2 was the Legal Advisor, a member of the
Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with the
G
· Lokayukt and Petitioner Nos. 3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya
Pradesh Special Police Establishment.
/3. The petitioners herein claimed that the said letters
· viol~te their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of
H
250
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A the Constitution of India and are contrary to Article 194(3) and
prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction(s) quashing
the said letters as well as the complaints filed by Respondent
Nos. 5, 6 (since expired), 7, 8 and 9 herein.
B
4. Brief facts
(a) An anonymous complaint was received on 21.06.2005
in the office of the Lokayukt stating that a road connecting the
Vidhan Sabha with Vallabh Bhawan, involving an expenditure
of about Rs. 2 crores, was being constructed without inviting
C tenders and complying with the prescribed procedure. It was
also averred in the said complaint that with a view to regularize
the above-said works, the officers misused their official position
and got the work sanctioned to the Capital Project
Administration in violation of the rules which amounts to serious
D financial irregularity and misuse of office. It was also mentioned
in the said complaint that in order to construct the said road,
one hundred trees had been cut down without getting the
permission from the concerned department. The said complaint
was registered as E.R. No.127 of2005. During the inquiry, the
E Deputy Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, vide
letter dated 18.08.2005 stated that the work had been allotted
to the lowest tenderer and the trees were cut only after obtaining
the requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation. In view
of the said reply, the matter was closed on 22.08.2005.
F
(b) On 22.12.2006, again a complaint was filed by one Shri
P.N. Tiwari, supported with affidavit and various documents,
alleging the same irregularities in the said const. uction work
by the officers of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat in collusion with
the Capital Project Administration which got registered as E.R.
G No. 122 of 2006. A copy of the said complaint was sent to the
Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Housing
and Environment Department for comments. In reply, the
Additional Secretary, M.P. Government, Housing and
Environment Department submitted the comments along with
H certain documents stating that the Building Controller Division
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
251
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
working under the Capital Project Administration was
A
transferred to the administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat vide Order dated 17.07.2000 and consequently the
Secretariat Vidhan Sabha was solely responsible for the
construction and maintenance work within the Vidhan Sabha
premises.
(c) On 26.06.2007, a request was made to the Principal
Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to submit all
B
the relevant records, tender documents, note sheets,
administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by
C
10.10.2007. By letter dated 17.07.2007, the Under Secretary
of the said Department informed that since the admi;iistrative
sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the
materials were not available with them. In view of the said reply,
the Lokayukt-(Petitioner No.1 herein) sent letters dated
31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Housing and
D
Environment Department, Administrator, Capital Project
Administration and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat to appear before him along with all the relevant
records on 10.08.2007. On 10.08.2007, the Principal
Secretary, Housing and Environment appeared before the
E
Lokayukt and informed that since the Controller Buildings of
Capital Project Administration was working under the
administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat since
2000, all sanctions/approvals and records relating to
construction and maintenance work were available in the Vidhan
F
Sabha Secretariat. In view of the above reply, the Lokayukt
summoned the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 respectively on
24.08.2007 to give evidence and produce all records/notesheets of administrative and technical sanctions and budgetary
G
and tender approvals relating to construction works carried out
in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha Premises in the year
2005-2006.
(d) The Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Respondent No. 10
H
252
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 3 S.C.R.
A herein, in his deposition dated 24.08.2007, admitted giving of
administrative approval to the estimated cost which was
available with the office of the Lokayukta and stated that the
relevant note-sheet was in the possession of the Hon'ble
Speaker, therefore, he prayed for time to produce the same
B by 07.09.2007.
(e) Vide letter dated 07.09.2007, Respondent No.10.
conveyed his inability to produce the same. After receiving
information from the Chief Engineer, Public Works Department,
C Capital Project, Controller Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital
Project Administration and Chief Engineer, Public Works
Department vide letters dated 11.09.2007, 13.09.2007 and
18.09.2007 respectively, the Legal Advisor -Petitioner No. 2
herein - a member of the M.P. Higher Judicial Service
thoroughly examined the same and found that it is a fit case to
D be sent to the SPE for taking action in accordance with law.
Petitioner No.1 was in agreement with the said opinion.
Thereafter, Crime Case No. 33/07 was registered against the
Secretary, Vidhan Sabha (Respondent No.10 herein), Shri A.P.
Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator,
E Superintendent Engineer, Capital Project Administration and
Contractors on 06.10.2007.
(f) After registration of the case, Petitioner No.1 received
the impugned letters dated 15.10.2007 and 18.10.2007
F alleging breach of privilege under Procedures and Conduct of
Business Rules 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha
against him and the officers of the Special Police
Establishment. In response to the aforesaid letters, by letter
dated 23.10.2007, the Secretary, Lokayukt explained the
G factual position of Petitioner No.1 herein stating that no case
of breach of privilege was made out and also pointed out that
neither any complaint had been received against the Hon'ble
Speaker nor any inquiry was conducted by the Lokayukt
Organization against him nor his name was found in the FIR.
H
(g) On 26.10.2007, the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha -
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
253
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
Respondent No.4 sent six letters stating that the reply dated
A
23.10.2007 is not acceptable and that individual replies should
be sent by each of the petitioners.
(h) Being aggrieved by the initiation of action by the
Hon'ble Speaker for breach of privilege, the petitioners have
8
preferred this writ petition.
5. Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for
the writ petitioners, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, learned counsel for the
State-Respondent No. 1 and Mr. C.D. Singh, learned counsel
for the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha-Respondent No.4.
C
Contentions:
6. Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior counsel for the
petitioners raised the following contentions:-
D
(i) Whether the Legislative Assembly or its Members enjoy
any privilege in respect of an inquiry or an investigation into a
criminal offence punishable under any law for the time being in
force, even when inquiry or investigation was initiated in
performance of duty enjoined by law enacted by the very
E
Legislative Assembly of which the breach of privilege is
alleged?
(ii) Whether officials of the Legislative Assembly also enjoy
the same privileges which are available to Assembly and its
Members?
(iii) Whether seeking mere information or calling the
officials of Vidhan Sabha Secretariat for providing information
during inquiry or investigation amounts to breach of privilege?
(iv) In view of the letter dated 23.08.2007, sent by the
Principal Secretary to Respondent Nos. 10 and 11, i.e.,
Secretary and Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha respectively
directing them to appear before the Lokayukt (as per the order
F
G
of the Speaker), whether Respondent Nos. 10 and 11 can have
H
254
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
(2014] 3 S.C.R.
A any grievance that information was sought from them without
sanction and knowledge of the Speaker?
7. On behalf of the respondents, particularly, Respondent
No.4-Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Mr. C.D. Singh, at the foremost
B submitted that the present petition under Article 32 of the
Constitution of India invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court is not
maintainable as no fundamental right of the petitioners, as
envisaged in Part Ill of the Constitution, has been violated by
any of the actions of Respondent No. 4. It is their stand that
every action pertaining to the Assembly and its administration
C is within the domain and jurisdiction of the Hon'ble Speaker.
The matter of privilege is governed under the rules as contained
in Chapter XXI of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha. Hence, it is
stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on
D the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.
E
8. Before considering rival contentions and the legal
position, it is useful to recapitulate the factual details and
relevant statutory provisions which are as under:-
The legislature of the Central Province and Berar enacted
the Central Provinces and Berar Special Police Establishment
Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'the SPE Act'). Under the
said Act, a Special Police Force was constituted which has
F power to investigate the offences notified by the State
Government under Section 3 of the said Act, which reads as
under:-
"3. Offences to be investigated by Special Police
Establishment:- The State Government may, by
G
notifications, specify the offences or classes of offences
which are to be investigated by (Madhya Pradesh) Special
Police Establishment."
9. On 16.09.1981, Legislative Assembly of the State of
H Madhya Pradesh enacted the Lokayukt Act with the following
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
255
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
objective as has been stated in the preamble of the said Act:-
A
'.'An Act to make provision for the appointment and
functions of certain authorities for the enquiry into the
allegation against "Public Servants" and for matters
connected there with."
Section 2(a) of the Lokayukt Act defines "officer" in the
following manner:-
B
"officer" means a person appointed to a public service or
post in connection with the affairs of the State of Madhya c
Pradesh."
Section 2(b) defines "allegation" as f.ollows:-
"allegation" in relation to a public servant means any
affirmation that such public servant,
D
(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 to any person;
(ii) was actuated in the discharge of his functions as such
public servant by improper or corrupt motives;
(iii) is guilty of corruption; or
E
(iv) is in possession of pecuniary resources or property
F
disproportionate to his known sources of income and such
pecuniary resources or property is held by the public
servant personally or by any member of his family or by
some other person on his behalf.
Explanation:- For the purpose of this sub-clause "family"
G
means husband, wife, sons and unmarried daughters living
jointly with him;"
The phrase "Public Servant" has been defined under Section
2(g) of the Lokayukt Act in the following terms:
H
256
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S C.R.
A
"Public Servant" means a person falling under any of the
following categories, namely:-
B
c
D
E
F
G
(i) Minister;
(ii) a person having the rank of a Minister but shall not
include Speaker and Deputy Speaker of the Madhya
Pradesh Vidhan Sabha;
(iii) an officer referred to in clause (a);
(iv) an officer of an Apex Society or Central Society within
the meaning of Clause (t-1) read with Clauses (a-1), (c-1)
and {z) of Section 2 of the Madhya Pradesh Co-operative
Societies Act, 1960 (No. 17 of 1961 ).
(v) Any person holding any office in, or any employee of -
(i) a Government Company within the meaning of
Section 617 of the Companies Act, 1956; or
(ii) a Corporation or Local Authority established by
State Government under a Central or State
enactment.
(vi) (a) Up-Kulpati, Adhyacharya and Kul Sachiva of the
Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya constituted under
Section 3 of the Indira Kala Sangit Vishwavidyalaya Act,
1956 (No. 19 of 1956);
(b) Kulpati and Registrar of the Jawahar Lal Nehru Krishi
Vishwavidyalaya constituted under Section 3 of the
Jawaharlal Nehru Krishi Vishwavidyalaya Act, 1963 (No.
12 of 1963);
Kulpati Rector and Registrar of the Vishwavidyalay
constituted under Section 5 of the Madhya Pradesh
Vishwavidyalay Adhiniyam, 1973 (No. 22 of 1973)."
H
10. Thus, all persons, except those specifically excluded
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
257
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
under the said definition, come within the domain of the
A
Lokayukt Act and the Lokayukt can, therefore, entertain
complaints and take actions in accordance with the said
provisions. Section 7 of the said Act thereafter defines the role
of the Lokayukt and the Up-Lokayukt in the following terms:-
"7. Matters which may be enquired into by Lokayukt
or Up-Lokayukt:-
Subject to the provision of this Act, on receiving complaint
or other information:-
(i) the Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an allegation
made against a public servant in relation to whom the
Chief Minister is the competent authority.
B
c
(ii) the Up-Lokayukt may proceed to enquire into an
D
allegation made against any public servant other than
referred to in clause (i)
Provided that the Lokayukt may enquire into an allegation
made against any public servant referred to in clause (ii).
Explanation:- For the purpose of this Section, the
expression "may proceed to enquire", and "may enquire",
include investigation by Police agency put at the disposal
. of Lokayukt and Up-Lokayukt in pursuance of sub-Section
(3) of Section 13.
11. On 14.09.2000, the State Government issued a
notification in exercise of powers under Section 3 of the SPE
E
F
Act by which the Special Police Establishment was empowered
G
to investigate offences with regard to the following offences:-
(a) Offences punishable under the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (No. 49 of 1988);
H
258
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A
(b) Offences under Sections 409 and 420 and Chapter
XVIII of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (No. XLV of 1860)
when they are committed, attempted or abused by public
servants or employees of a local authority or a statutory
corporation, when such offences adversely affect the
B
interests of the State Government or the local authority or
the statutory corporation, as the case may be;
c
D
E
(c) Conspiracies in respect of offences mentioned in item
(a) and (b) above; and
(d) Conspiracies in respect of offences mentioned in item
(a) and (b) shall be charged with simultaneously in one trial
under the provisions of Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
(No. 2 of 1974).
12. As per the provision of Section 4 of the SPE Act, the
superintendence of investigation by the M.P. Special Police
Establishment was vested in the Lokayukt appointed under the
Lokayukt Act.
13. On 22.12.2006, a complaint was received from one
Shri P.N. Tiwari supported by affidavit and various documents
making allegations that works had been carried out in the new
Assembly building by the Capital Project Administration in
gross violation of the rules, without making budgetary provisions
F and committing financial irregularities. The said complaint was
registered as E.R. 122 of 2006. In the said complaint, it was
mentioned that:
(a) An order had been issued to the Administrator, Capital
G Project Administration by Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary,
Vidhan Sabha giving administrative approval for the estimate
of the cost of construction against rules and without making
budgetary provision vide order dated 19.10.2005 in respect of
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
259
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
the following works:
A
S.No.
Name of works
Amount in
lakhs
(i)
Construction of 30 rooms in MLA Rest
Rs. 5.51
House Block-2
B
(ii)
Construction of toilets in Block 1-3 of
Rs. 25.48
MLA Rest House
(iii)
Construction of shops in MLA Rest
Rs. 5.98
House premises
(iv)
Up-gradation/construction of road from
c
Mazar to Gate No. 5 of Vidhan Sabha
(Old Jail)
(a) Construction of road from Mazar to
Rs. 22.52
Rotary
(b) Construction of road from Rotary to
Rs. 13.23
D
Jail Road
(v)
Construction of lounge for the Speaker
Rs. 6.80
and Officers in Vidhan Sabha Hall
(vi)
Construction of new reception zone
Rs. 54.00
(including parking/road) for Vidhan
E
Sabha
(vii)
Upgradation work of campus lights and
Rs. 26.60
electric work in MLA Rest House .
premises
F
(viii)
Construction of road from Vidhan Sabha
to Secretariat (including development of
helipad and connected area) and
proposed upgradation and development
work of M.P. Pool/spraypond:
G
(a) Construction of new road from the Vlf Rs. 10.85
entrance upto the proposed new gate
(b) Construction of road from present
Rs. 21.56
Char Diwari to Rotary .
H
260
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
A
(c) Construction of road from Rotary to
Rs. 12.00
Secretariat
Total sanctioned amount
Rs. 204.53
(b) the officers had abused their powers by getting the
B
works carried out without making budgetary provisions and
without getting approval from the Finance Department in
respect of the works specified at item numbers (iv), (vi), (vii)
and (viii) above.
(c) Following financial irregularities were also pointed out:
c
(i)
Though administrative approval was accorded by
Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha
on 19.10.2005, works had already been executed
and inaugurated in the presence of the then Chief
D
Minister, Shri Babula! Gaur and the Speaker,
Vidhan Sabha and other Ministers on 03.08.2005.
The proper procedure is to first invite tenders and
it is only after the acceptance of the suitable tenders
that work orders are to be issued.
E
(ii)
Budgetary head of the Vidhan Sabha is 1555. This
head is meant for maintenance and not for new
construction, but the administrative approval dated
19.10.2005 was accorded by Shri A.P. Singh,
Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha in respect of new
F
works of total value of Rs. 160. 76 lakh.
(iii)
Works of the value of Rs. 160. 76 lakh were carried
out without any budgetary provision and also without
the approval of the Finance Department.
G
Furthermore, a proposal had been sent by the
Capital Project Administration for sanction of
budget but the same was not approved by the
Finance Department. Even then the works were got
executed.
H
(iv)
As per the approval dated 19.10.2005, expenditure
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
261
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
was to be incurred from the main budgetary head
A
2217 which is the head of Urban Development.
From that head, construction activities in the Vidhan
Sabha premises could not be carried out.
(v)
B
The Controller Buildings, Capital Project (Vidhan
Sabha) executed the .works in collusion with the
other officers and in violation of the rules. It was
stated that the officials had abused their powers to
regularize their irregular activities. The works had
been undertaken forthe personal benefit of some
officers and payments were made in violation of the
C
rules.
14. By letter dated 04.01.2007, a copy of the complaint
was sent to the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh
Government, Housing and Environment Department calling
factual comments along with the relevant documents. The
comments were submitted by the Additional Secretary, M.P.
Government, Housing and Environment Department vide letter
dated 15.05.2007. The comments, inter alia, stated that the
Building Controller Division functioning under the Capital Project
Administration was transferred to the administrative control of
the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide order dated 17.07.2000,
consequently, Secretariat Vidhan Sabha is solely responsible
for the construction and maintenance works within the Vidhan
Sabha p'remises. On examination of the comments received
along with the supporting documents, following discrepancies
were revealed:
D
E
F
(a)
Whereas the comments stated that budget
provision had been made. for an amount of
Rs.204.53 lakh for the purpose of special repairs
G
and maintenance of old and new Vidhan Sabha and
MLA Rest House under Demand No. 21, main head
2217, sub main head 01, minor head 001,
development head 1555 (3207), no amounts were
specified under those heads, sub heads and minor
H
A
B
c
D
262
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014] 3 S.C.R.
heads which were related to new construction
works;
(b)
Whereas the comments stated that work had been
executed through tenders, but tender documents
had not been annexed.
(c)
Whereas the comments stated that approval in
respect of nine works had been accorded by the
Secretariat, Vidhan Sabha on the request of the
Controller Buildings on 21.03.2005, however, it is
not clear from the letter dated 21.03.2005 that
administrative approval had been accorded; and
(d)
Whereas the comments stated that amended
sanction was granted vide order dated 19.10.2005,
while the letter dated 19.10.2005 does not indicate
that it was an amended administrative sanction.
15. In view of the above preliminary observations, as noted
above, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, Housing
and Environment Department to submit all relevant records,
E tender documents, note-sheets, administrative, technical and
budgetary sanctions by 10.07.2007. It was again informed by
the Under Secretary, Housing and Environment Department,
vide letter dated 17.07.2007 that since the administrative
sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the
F note-sheets/records relating to such sanctions were not
available with the Housing and Environment Department.
16. In view of the reply submitted by the Under Secretary,
Housing and Environment Department, the Petitioner sent a
G letter dated 31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary,
Housing and Environment Department, Administrator, Capital
Project Administration and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha Secretariat to appear before the Lokayukt along with
all relevant information/records on 10.08.2007.
H
JUSTICE RIPUSUDAN DAYAL (RETD.) & ORS. v.
263
STATE OF M.P. & ORS. [P. SATHASIVAM, CJI.]
17. On the date fixed for appearance, i.e., 10.08.2007, the
A
Principal Secretary, Housing arid Environment appeared before
the Lokayukt. He informed that since the Controller Buildings
of Capital Project Administration was working under the
administrative control of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat since
the year2000, all sanctions/approvals and records regarding
construction and maintenance works carried out in MLA Rest
House and Vidhan Sabha premises were available in the
Vidhan Sabha Secretariat. On receiving such information, the
Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, informed that
B
the records relating to construction works were not with him and
C
that such type of work was looked after by the Secretary and
the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha. In this situation, Secretary
and Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and Controller
Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital Project Administration were
summoned to give evidence and produce all records/notesheets of administrative and technical sanctions and budgetary
D
and tender approvals relating to construction works carried out
in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha premises in the year
2005-06 on 24.08.2007. Summons were issued as per the
provisions of Section 11 (1) of the Lokayukt Act, read with
Sections 61 and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
Summons were received by the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan
Sabha, Shri G.K. Rajpal and the Controller Buildings, Shri
Devendra Tiwari. Process Server of the Lokayukt Organisation
· tried to serve summons on Shri lsrani in his office. Process
Server contacted Shri Harish Kumar Shrivas, P.A. to Shri lsrani.
The P.A. took the summons to Shri lsrani. After coming back,
he asked the Process Server to wait tiil 4.00 p.m. Later, the
P.A. told the Process Server to take permission of the Hon'ble
Speaker to effect service of the summons on the Secretary. As
such, summons could not be served on Shri lsrani.
18. Thereafter, D.O. letter dated 14.08.2007 was received
from the Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha stating that as per
the direction of the Hon'ble Speaker, he was informing the
Lokayukt Organization that:
E
F
G
H
A
B
c
D
E
264
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2014) 3 S.C.R.
(a)
The Vidhan Sabha Secretariat was not aware as
to the complaint which was being inquired into;
(b)
All proceedings relating to invitation of tenders,
technical sanction, work orders and payment etc.
were conducted through the Controller Buildings,
Capital Project Administration and, therefore, all the
records relating to these works should be available
with them;
(c)
If, a copy of the complaint, which is being inquired
into, is made available to the Vidhan Sabha
Secretariat, it would be possible to make the
position more clear. That was the reason why the
Speaker had not granted permission to the Deputy
Secretary to appear in the Office of the Lokayukt;
and
(d)
Under the provisions of Section 2(g)(ii) of the
Lokayukt Act, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker
and the Leader of Opposition are exempted from
the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt.
19.