Natural justice and scope of reference required before adverse Lokayukta action; writ challenge maintained and proceedings quashed.

Withdrawal of an earlier writ petition did not bar a fresh challenge because the earlier petition had not been decided on merits, and the availability of a Section 482 CrPC remedy did not exclude writ jurisdiction where violation of natural justice and statutory safeguards was alleged. The Court also held that the Lokayukta report portion under challenge travelled beyond the Government's reference under the Karnataka Lokayukta Act and that the petitioner was denied notice and an opportunity of hearing, contrary to the statutory procedure and audi alteram partem. On those grounds, the complaint, sanction order, FIR and impugned report portion were quashed as vitiated.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the writ petition was barred by withdrawal of an earlier petition and by the availability of a remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; (ii) Whether the Lokayukta's report fell within the scope of the Government's reference under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984; (iii) Whether the procedural safeguards in Section 9(3)(a) and Section 9(3)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 were required to be followed; and (iv) Whether the complaint, sanction order, FIR and the impugned portion of the report were liable to be quashed.

Issue (i): Whether the writ petition was barred by withdrawal of an earlier petition and by the availability of a remedy under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

Analysis: The earlier writ petition had been withdrawn and was not decided on merits. The Court held that such withdrawal did not attract res judicata and did not bar the petitioner from challenging subsequent proceedings. The availability of Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 did not oust the jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India where violation of natural justice and statutory safeguards was alleged.

Conclusion: The objections to maintainability were rejected.

Issue (ii): Whether the Lokayukta's report fell within the scope of the Government's reference under Section 7(2A) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984.

Analysis: The reference concerned illegal mining and related irregularities within a defined period and geographical area. The impugned chapter of the report was found to deal with matters not connected with that reference, and the Court held that the report portion under challenge travelled beyond the scope of the referral order.

Conclusion: The impugned report portion was held to be outside the scope of reference.

Issue (iii): Whether the procedural safeguards in Section 9(3)(a) and Section 9(3)(b) of the Karnataka Lokayukta Act, 1984 were required to be followed.

Analysis: The Court held that the Lokayukta functions as a quasi-judicial authority and that the principles of natural justice apply to proceedings of this nature. It found that the petitioner was not given an opportunity to be heard or to offer comments before adverse findings were recorded, and that the failure to comply with the statutory notice and hearing requirements amounted to a breach of fairness and audi alteram partem.

Conclusion: The Court held that the statutory and natural justice requirements were violated.

Issue (iv): Whether the complaint, sanction order, FIR and the impugned portion of the report were liable to be quashed.

Analysis: In view of the findings on maintainability, scope of reference, and violation of natural justice, the Court held that the report could not sustain the subsequent complaint, sanction and FIR. It concluded that the petitioner had been condemned unheard and that the proceedings were vitiated.

Conclusion: The complaint, sanction order, FIR and the impugned report portion were quashed.

Final Conclusion: The proceedings founded on the impugned Lokayukta report could not be sustained because the petitioner was denied a hearing and the report portion under challenge went beyond the reference, warranting interference under writ jurisdiction.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statutory or quasi-judicial investigation results in adverse civil or criminal consequences, compliance with the applicable hearing requirement and the principles of natural justice is mandatory, and action taken on a report that exceeds the scope of reference is liable to be set aside.

---