Procedural discretion of Lokayukta upheld: written submissions can replace oral hearing at interlocutory stage.

Where a statute confers discretion on a quasi-judicial authority to regulate its own procedure, that discretion may vary by stage and is not frozen by an earlier choice to permit oral hearing. Section 32 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 was treated as enabling, not a condition precedent, so the Lokayukta could regulate procedure without framed regulations. On an interlocutory application under Section 27, the petitioner had no absolute right to oral arguments; written submissions were sufficient at that stage, and dispensing with oral hearing was held fair despite possible future consequences. The challenge to the procedural order therefore failed.

---

---

Issues: (i) Whether the Lokayukta, after adopting a procedure in a matter, must follow the same procedure throughout; (ii) whether the Lokayukta can regulate its procedure without framing regulations under Section 32 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011; (iii) whether the petitioner was entitled, as a matter of right, to oral arguments on an interlocutory application under Section 27 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011; (iv) whether the stage and nature of the application justified dispensing with oral hearing despite possible future consequences of the inquiry.

Issue (i): Whether the Lokayukta, after adopting a procedure in a matter, must follow the same procedure throughout.

Analysis: The procedure under the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011 is stage-sensitive. The Act contemplates distinct phases such as preliminary inquiry, detailed investigation, and interlocutory determinations, and confers discretion on the Lokayukta to regulate proceedings according to the circumstances of each stage. The fact that oral hearing was earlier permitted does not freeze the procedure for all subsequent stages.

Conclusion: No. The Lokayukta may modulate procedure at different stages.

Issue (ii): Whether the Lokayukta can regulate its procedure without framing regulations under Section 32 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011.

Analysis: Section 32 is an enabling provision for regulations and does not operate as a condition precedent to the Lokayukta exercising the procedural discretion already conferred by the parent Act. Where the statute itself authorises the authority to regulate its procedure, the absence of regulations does not disable that statutory power.

Conclusion: Yes. The Lokayukta can regulate its own procedure even without framed regulations.

Issue (iii): Whether the petitioner was entitled, as a matter of right, to oral arguments on an interlocutory application under Section 27 of the Goa Lokayukta Act, 2011.

Analysis: Oral hearing is a facet of fair hearing, but it is not indispensable in every proceeding. Where the statute is silent on oral hearing and expressly allows the authority to regulate procedure, the choice between oral and written hearing rests in the authority's discretion. An interlocutory application on maintainability, especially under Section 27, was treated as essentially a question of law that did not require oral articulation as of right.

Conclusion: No. There was no absolute right to oral arguments on the interlocutory application.

Issue (iv): Whether the stage and nature of the application justified dispensing with oral hearing despite possible future consequences of the inquiry.

Analysis: The proceeding had not reached the stage of final inquiry or any determination having immediate penal or office-vacating consequences. The immediate issue was only maintainability under Section 27, and the Court treated the Lokayukta's choice of written submissions as a fair exercise of discretion in the prevailing circumstances. Potential future consequences did not, at that stage, mandate oral hearing.

Conclusion: No. The dispensation of oral hearing at that stage was justified.

Final Conclusion: The challenge to the Lokayukta's procedural order failed, and the Court declined to interfere, while leaving open the petitioner's ability to seek appropriate procedural indulgence at a later stage if the matter so warranted.

Ratio Decidendi: Where a statute confers discretion on a quasi-judicial authority to regulate its own procedure and is silent on mandatory oral hearing, the authority may require written submissions instead of oral arguments, especially at an interlocutory stage, provided the procedure remains fair.

---