Serial No. 01
Supplementary List
HIGH COURT OF MEGHALAYA
AT SHILLONG
MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 In
WP(C) No. 363 of 2021
MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 In
WP(C) No. 120 of 2021
Date of Decision: 31.05.2024
MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 In
WP(C) No. 363 of 2021
1. State of Meghalaya Represented by
Home Political Department,
Meghalaya.
2. Director General of Police,
Meghalaya.
3. Superintendent of Police, East Garo
Hills District, Meghalaya.
4. Additional Superintendent of Police,
East Garo Hills District, Meghalaya. ::::: Petitioners
-Vs-
1. Chairperson Meghalaya Lokayukta,
Shillong, Meghalaya Shillong
Meghalaya.
2. Secretary, Meghalaya Lokayukta,
Shillong, Meghalaya.
3. Shri. Nilberth Ch. Marak,
S/o (L) Nangsin T. Sangma
R/o Dawagittingre
1
P/O & P/S Williamnagar, East Garo
Hills District, Meghalaya-794111 ::::: Respondents
MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 In
WP(C) No. 120 of 2021
Shri. Withing N. Sangma ::::: Petitioner
-Vs-
1. State of Meghalaya represented by the
Director General of Police, Meghalaya,
Shillong.
2. Chairperson Meghalaya Lokayukta, Shillong
Meghalaya.
3. Secretary Meghalaya Lokayukta, Shillong
Meghalaya
4. Shri. Nilberth Ch. Marak,
R/o Rongram, P.O & P.S Rongram,
West Garo Hills District, Meghalaya.
5. Superintendent of Police, East Garo Hills
District, Meghalaya, Williamnagar. ::::: Respondents
Coram:
Hon’ble Mr. Justice W. Diengdoh, Judge
MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 In
WP(C) No. 363 of 2021
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG. with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.Sr.GA.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. S. Jindal, Adv. for R 1 & 2.
Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv. for R 3.
2
MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 In
WP(C) No. 120 of 2021
Appearance:
For the Petitioner/Appellant(s) : Mr. S. Deb, Adv.
For the Respondent(s) : Mr. A. Kumar, AG. with
Mr. A.H. Kharwanlang, Addl.Sr.GA.
For R 1.
Mr. S. Jindal, Adv. for R 2 & 3.
Mr. P.T. Sangma, Adv. for R 4.
i) Whether approved for reporting in Yes/No
Law journals etc.:
ii) Whether approved for publication
in press: Yes/No
C O M M O N O R D E R
1. This Court vide order dated 06.09.2023, on the prayer of the
learned Advocate General appearing for the State/petitioners to amend
the main petition, that is, WP(C) No. 363 of 2021 by effectively striking
off the names of the respondents/Chairperson and the Secretary,
Meghalaya Lokayukta, respectively, has allowed the same to be brought
up by way of a separate application, with liberty to the respondents to
respond to the same, which was done so in due course.
2. It may be mentioned that in the main petition, the case of the
State/petitioner is that the respondent No. 3 herein has filed a complaint
3
before the Lokayukta under Section 20(1) of the Meghalaya Lokayukta
Act, 2014 with allegations made therein. This complaint was then
registered as Complaint Case No. 5 of 2020.
3. The
Hon’ble Chairperson, Lokayukta having taken
cognizance of the said complaint has inter alia, directed for an inquiry to
be made thereon and in the process, had passed several related orders
dated 23.06.2020, 30.07.2020, 26.02.2021 and 18.03.2021. Being
aggrieved with such orders passed by the Chairperson, Meghalaya
Lokayukta, this Court was accordingly approached with an application
under Article 226 of the Constitution of India with a prayer to quash all
consequential orders and the entire proceedings therein.
4. Mr. A. Kumar, learned Advocate General, has submitted that
the State/petitioners has preferred the said application under Article 226
of the Constitution of India to challenge the process conducted by the
n to be initiated on the
Hon’ble Lokayukta who has ordered investigatio
said complaint filed, which act is beyond the purview of the powers and
functions of the Lokayukta under the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014.
5. However, while filing the said writ petition, the
State/petitioners
has realized that inadvertently, the Hon’ble Chairperson
4
Lokayukta and the Secretary, Lokayukta have been arrayed as party
respondents in the proceedings, when in fact, only the complainant, that
is, the respondent No. 3 ought to have been impleaded as respondent.
6. It is the submission of the learned AG that the Lokayukta
being a quasi-judicial body, is neither a proper nor a necessary party to
the lis since the Lokayukta is not bound to defend its own order in a
related proceeding.
7. To further this contention, the learned AG has referred to the
various provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, beginning with the
definition part found in Section 2, then to Section 11 which speaks of
the power of the Lokayukta to constitute an Inquiry Wing for the
purpose of conducting preliminary inquiry into any alleged offence and
Section 14(1) which specifically lists down those public servants and
officials who comes within the ambit of the power to be inquired into as
regard any allegation of corruption was also cited. The procedure to be
followed upon receipt of any complaint as found under Section 20(1)
was also pointed out.
8. The learned AG has then laid stress on the provision of
Section 27(1) of the Act to say that this provision has empowered the
5
Lokayukta with the powers of a Civil Court with all the trappings of a
regular court, such as powers to summon witnesses and for production of
evidence.
9. Again, the learned AG has submitted that Section 51 of the
Act states that no suit, prosecution or other legal proceedings shall lie
against the Lokayukta or its officers, employees, agency or any person,
in respect of any act done in good faith or intended to be done under the
Act or rules and regulations made thereunder, which is clearly a bar for
the petitioner to implead the Lokayukta in these proceedings.
10. In support of the above contention, the learned AG has
referred to the case of Special Police Establishment v. State of Madhya
Pradesh, Writ Petition No. 25917 of 2021, para 7 and the case of
Additional Tahsildar & Anr v. Urmila G. & Ors, 2023 SCC Online SC
1613, para 11 & 13.
11. The learned AG has reiterated that the Lokayukta being a
judicial or quasi-judicial body, it is not a necessary or proper party to the
proceedings herein. The State/petitioners being the dominus litus, it may
choose whom to implead as party respondents against such persons
whom it wishes to proceed for which effective relief(s) is sought for.
6
12. The Lokayukta cannot come to defend its own order when in
fact, it would be the aggrieved person or rather the complainant in this
case who will be the best person to defend the impugned orders, it was
further submitted.
13. On this aspect of the matter, the learned AG has cited the
following cases:-
i. Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd. v.
Regency Convention Centre and Hotels(P) Ltd,
(2010) 7 SCC 417, para 13;
ii. Asian Hotels (North) Limited v. Alok Kumar Lodha
& Ors, (2022) 8 SCC 145 para 37;
iii. M.S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society & Ors,
(2016) 9 SCC 262, para 9
14. Mr. S. Deb, learned counsel for the petitioner in WP(C) No.
120 of 2021, who is the person affected by the impugned orders have
been passed, have also filed a similar application seeking to strike off the
name of the Lokayukta from the proceedings. The said application being
numbered as MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023, which is also an identical
7
application with a prayer to strike off the names of the respondents/
Chairperson and Secretary Lokayukta, respectively.
15. Accordingly, these two miscellaneous applications have been
dealt with herein together with a common order passed.
16. The learned counsel has submitted that in the order dated
23.06.2020
passed by the Hon’ble Chairperson, Lokayukta, Meghalaya,
on a complaint filed by the respondent No. 4/Shri Nilberth Ch. Marak,
whereby certain allegations have been made against the petitioner with
regard to some developmental projects on behalf of the Garo Hills
Autonomous District Council(GHADC) undertaken by the petitioner, a
direction was issued upon the Director General of Police(DGP) to cause
a preliminary inquiry and to submit a report within four weeks. In the
said order, the Hon’ble Chairperson Lokayukta has also directed the
Chief Secretary and Addl. Chief Secretary, Finance to stop further
payment to the petitioner in connection with the work in question.
17. By the said order dated 23.06.2020
, the Hon’ble Chairperson,
Lokayukta has in effect adjudicated upon the complaint of the
respondent No. 4 which thereby makes the said order to have been
passed in a quasi-judicial capacity.
8
18. In response, Mr. S. Jindal, learned counsel for the
respondents/Lokayukta has addressed the twofold contention raised by
the learned AG on behalf of the petitioner in MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of
2023(supra), which in effect will be sufficient to deal with the issues
raised in the two miscellaneous applications(supra).
19. As to the contention that the petitioner is the dominus litis,
that is, the master of the suit and that it is his prerogative to include any
party in the suit as defendant or respondent as the case may be, the
learned counsel has submitted that there is no quarrel with this
proposition of law. However, the petitioner being the dominus litis, he
has not been granted a carte blanche or a free license to conduct himself
in any manner he wishes. In a lis between the parties, it is incumbent
upon the court to apply its judicious mind and to resort to the provision
of Order I Rule 10(2) of the Code of Civil Procedure as and when
necessary. The said provision, in other words provides for adding of
proper and necessary party or striking of unnecessary parties from the
proceedings before such court.
20. In support of this contention, the learned counsel has referred
to the case of Mumbai International Airport Private Limited v. Regency
9
Convention Centre and Hotels(P) Ltd, (2010) 7 SCC 417, para 13 and
also the case of Ashok Babu Lal Awasthi v. Munna Nizamuddin Khan &
Anr, 2023 SCC OnLine Bom 2559, para 11 and has submitted that in the
context of the case between the parties herein, the facts and
circumstances would make it amply clear that the Lokayukta is a proper
and necessary party in these proceedings.
21. The learned counsel has further submitted that the prayer of
the State/petitioners for deletion of the names of the
respondents/Lokayukta from the proceedings is self-destructive,
inasmuch as, initially, when the petition was filed, only the respondent
Nos. 1 and 2, that is, the Chairperson and the Secretary, Meghalaya
Lokayukta respectively were made party respondents. It was only in
course of proceedings that the petitioner has sought for impleadment of
the complainant who had filed the complaint before the Lokayukta as
respondent No. 3 which was allowed by this Court. In such a scenario, if
the names of the respondents Nos. 1 and 2 are struck off from these
proceedings, there will be only a private party as the sole respondent and
this in itself would defeat the purpose of filing a writ petition under
Article 226 of the Constitution of India since this Court would not
exercise writ jurisdiction on a private party.
10
22. On the contention of the petitioner that under the various
provisions of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014, it is evident that the
Lokayukta is a judicial/quasi-judicial body, the learned counsel has
submitted that except for the provision of Section 27(1) and 27(2) of the
Act which are slightly relevant provisions, nothing in the Act has clothe
the entire institution of Lokayukta with judicial power to function as a
Civil Court. Section 27(1) provides that the Inquiry Wing of the
Lokayukta shall have all the powers of a Civil Court under the CPC
while trying a suit in respect of summons, attendance and examination of
any person on oath, receiving evidence on affidavits and the like. Section
27(2) has also provided that the proceedings before the Lokayukta shall
be deemed to be a judicial proceeding, however, this is confined only
with respect to compliance with the requirement of Section 193 of the
Indian Penal Code.
23. The Lokayukta while conducting proceeding under Section
20 of the Act does not decide or adjudicate or settle any issue vis-à-vis
the inter-se rights of the parties. In fact, under the provision of Section
20(7), the Lokayukta on consideration of a report received by it from any
investigation agency, may decide to file charge sheet or a closure report
or to direct initiation of departmental proceeding against the concerned
11
public servant. The power exercise by the Lokayukta in this regard are
only recommendatory in nature. To buttress this point, the learned
counsel has referred to the case of Additional Tahsildar v. Urmila G. &
Ors, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1613, wherein at para 9, the following is
found
Insofar as the jurisdiction of Lokayukta is
“9.
concerned a Division Bench of the High Court in
Sudha Devi K. v. District Collector, 2017 SCC
OnLine Ker 1264, had opined that in terms of Section
12(1) of the 1999 Act, The Lok Ayukta, 1999, Lok
Ayukta was not competent to issue positive direction.
He can only submit a report with the concerned
authority with its recommendations. They only have
recommendatory jurisdiction. A Lokayukta or Upa
Lokayukta is not appellate or supervisory authority
over other competent forums created under different
statutes, as each of those statues provide its own
remedial steps such as appeal, revision etc. The
parties need to follow that procedure. The 1999 Act is
not meant to override those procedures. The
aforesaid judgment of the Division Bench of the High
Court was referred to in the case in hand, however,
the same was ignored.”
24. While distinguishing the case of Special Police Establishment
v. The State of Madhya Pradesh(supra) relied upon by the
State/petitioners, the learned counsel has submitted that the said
judgment does not lay down any empirical rule that in all cases, the
Lokayukta has no right to defend its own order. Facts of the said case is
12
that the Lokayukta has sought for sanction for prosecution from the
respondent No. 3 therein which was denied and being thus aggrieved, the
High of Madhya Pradesh was approached by way of a writ petition. The
operative portion of the relevant order has reflected the opinion of the
has performed its duty of
Hon’ble High Court that “…once the Lokayukt
submitting its report to the Government, its role ends. It is the discretion
of the Government to grant sanction or not. When such a sanction has
This
been refused, the Lokayukt could not challenge the said order.”
observation was passed in a specific context and does not apply to the
present case, submits the learned counsel.
25. The learned counsel has again submitted that the controversy
or dispute between the parties herein has been answered by the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in the case of Office of the Odisha Lokayukta v. Dr.
Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi & Ors reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 175,
the judgment was rendered in the context of Section 20(1) of the Odisha
Lokayukta Act, 2014 which is para materia with Section 20(1) of the
Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014. The relevant paras of the case being
25, 27, 39 and 42 which are reproduced herein below as:
25.
Mr. Ranjan Kumar Das, Deputy
“
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell Unit,
13
Bhubaneswar was not a person interested but as an
informant submitted a complaint against respondent
No. 1 (MLA Gopalpur Constituency) to Odisha
Lokayukta regarding possession of disproportionate
assets and intentionally enriching himself illicitly
adopting mal practices. On the said complaint being
received, the appellant directed the Directorate of
Vigilance, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry
against respondent No.1 in exercise of his power
under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 by an order
th
dated 11 December, 2020. Before any action could
have been taken by the Directorate of Vigilance in
conducting a preliminary inquiry, a writ petition was
filed by respondent No.1 before the High Court and
on the first motion stage, the High Court, without
affording an opportunity of hearing to the appellant,
th
set aside the order dated 11 December, 2020 passed
by the appellant for conducting a preliminary
inquiry. The action of the Division Bench of the High
Court indeed was in violation of the principles of
natural justice.
27.
In the first instance, the Division Bench of the
High Court has committed a manifest error in
rd
passing of the order impugned dated 3 February,
2021 while setting aside the order of the appellant
th
dated 11 December, 2020 to conduct a preliminary
inquiry against respondent No.1 in exercise of
powers under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 which is
in violation of the principles of natural justice.
39.
The further objection raised by the respondents
is in reference to the locus standi of the appellant in
filing appeal in this Court and in support of his
submission, counsel placed reliance on the judgments
of this Court in National Commission for Women v.
State of Delhi and another, (2010) 12 SCC 599 and
M.S. Kazi v. Muslim Education Society and others,
(2016) 9 SCC 263. In our considered view, the
submission is wholly bereft of merit for the reason
14
that the action of the appellant initiated pursuant to
th
order dated 11 December, 2020 for conducting a
preliminary inquiry in exercise of powers conferred
under Section 20(1) of the Act, 2014 was a subject
matter of challenge before the High Court at the
instance of respondent No.1 and if that is being
interfered with and the action of the appellant is
being set aside under the impugned judgment dated
rd
3 February, 2021, the appellant, indeed, was a
person aggrieved and has a locus standi to question
the action interfered with by the Division Bench of
the High Court and the only remedy available with
the appellant is to question the order of the Division
Bench of the High Court by filing an special leave
petition in this Court under Article 136 of the
Constitution.
42.
Both the judgments relied upon are not even
remotely concerned with the facts and circumstances
of the present case. To say in other words, if the
order of the appellant directing the Directorate of
Vigilance to conduct the preliminary inquiry in
exercise of power under Section 20(1) of the Act,
th
2014 dated 11 December, 2020 has been set aside
by the High Court, obviously, the appellant is a
person aggrieved and can certainly question the
legality/validity of the judgment of the High Court
impugned by invoking jurisdiction of this Court under
Art
icle 136 of the Constitution.”
26. The learned counsel has submitted that in the said case of
Odisha Lokayukta (supra), the factual matrix is that the Odisha
Lokayukta having passed an order for conducting a preliminary inquiry
against the respondent No. 1 therein, the same was challenged before the
High Court of Odisha by the respondent No. 1 following which the
15
High Court set aside the order of the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta
Hon’ble
following
then carried the issue before the Hon’ble Supreme Court
which an order was passed quashing the impugned order of the High
Court on the ground that the same have been passed without hearing the
Lokayukta. On the issue of locus standi,
the Hon’ble Supreme Court has
held that since the Lokayukta was not heard by the High Court of
Odisha, the Lokayukta is a person aggrieved and has necessary locus
standi. The judgments relied upon by the respondents before the
Supreme Court, including the judgment in the case of M.S Kazi(supra)
also relied upon by the State/petitioners herein were held to be
“not even
remotely concerned with the facts and circumstance of the present case.”
27. The learned counsel has then submitted that the facts and
circumstances of the case in hand are similar to those raised in the case
of Odisha Lokayukta(supra) and as such, is squarely covered by the
judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court passed in this regard. The
respondents/Lokayukta being necessary parties cannot be struck off from
the array of parties herein. This application is therefore liable to be
rejected.
28. This Court in dealing with the issues raised by the parties
16
herein, is of the opinion that it would be prudent to look into the
assertion made by the learned AG who has referred to a number of
provisions from the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 to convince this
Court that the body of the Lokayukta is a functioning quasi-judicial one
with powers to adjudicate disputes between the parties before it, since a
finding in this regard would effectively settle the controversy raised
herein.
29. To the extent of repetition, in the main petition, the challenge
of the petitioners herein was against the orders passed by the H
on’ble
Chairperson, Lokayukta, Meghalaya, purportedly passed in exercise of
the provision of Section 20 of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014,
whereby, on a complaint filed by a private person wherein an allegation
was made, inter alia, that in the process of execution of certain projects
undertaken by the Garo Hills Autonomous District Council(GHADC),
there is evidence of corrupt practice and taking of bribe from the
complainant therein. The Lokayukta has then directed the DGP,
Meghalaya to cause a preliminary inquiry to be conducted. Thus, being
aggrieved by such direction and other consequential orders, the
petitioners have approached this Court by way of a writ petition.
17
30. It can be safely said that for proceedings under Section 20 of
the said Act conducted by the respondents/Lokayukta, the petitioners
have filed the writ petitions making the Chairperson and Secretary,
Lokayukta as party respondents, which is now sought to be undone by
the prayer made in these instant applications.
31. In the case of Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi(supra) as has
been pointed out, on the basis of a complaint filed before it, the
Lokayukta, Odisha has directed for a preliminary inquiry to be
conducted.
Being aggrieved by such direction, the Hon’ble High Court
of Orissa was approached by way of a writ petition with the Lokayukta
as party respondent. The High Court vide relevant order dated
03.02.2021, has set aside the order of the Lokayukta, Odisha, which has
then compelled the Lokayukta to file appeals before the Hon’ble
Supreme Court.
32.
Again, as has been mentioned hereinabove, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court has allowed the appeal and has set aside the order of the
In the said judgment dated
Hon’ble High Court dated 03.02.2021.
23.02.2023, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has discussed in details the
scope and ambit of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 and at para 39 of the
18
same, has also held that the Lokayukta has locus standi to prefer the
appeal before it against the order of the High Court since the appellant
(Lokayukta) was a person aggrieved.
33. Before proceeding further, this Court has perused the two
Acts in question, that is, the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 and the
Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014. On comparison, it is found that the
contents of the two Acts are almost identical and similar. This similarity
is seen while comparing Sections, 11, 12, 14, 25, 26, 27, 28 and other
sections, which though not identically numbered, in essence, the
meaning and purport are the same. This illustration is given only to come
to a finding as to whether the facts and circumstances of this case are
squarely covered by the Odisha Lukayukta case (supra).
34. Evidently, there exists a similar situation as far as this case
and the case of Odisha Lokayukta is concerned as in both cases, the
exercise of power by the Lokayukta under Section 20 of the Act to direct
for preliminary inquiry was questioned and in the final analysis, the
preme Court in the case of the Odisha Lokayukta has held
Hon’ble Su
that the Lokayukta is a person aggrieved who has locus standi to come
before the High Court. In this case, too, the presence of the Lokayukta,
19
that is, the Chairperson and Secretary, Lokayukta are necessary and
proper party for adjudication of the dispute between the parties.
35. The case of Mumbai International Airport Private Ltd.(supra)
para 13, incidentally cited by both the petitioner and the
respondents/Lokayukta as also the case of Alok Kumar Lodha(supra) as
well as the case of Ashok Babulal Awasthi(supra) cited by the
respondents/Lokayukta all speaks of the plaintiff as the dominus litis,
however, the provision of Order 1 Rule 10(2) CPC was also referred to
say that this general rule is subject to this proviso, which has been duly
noted by this Court in these proceedings.
36. Without looking into any other aspects of the matter, suffice
it to say that once it is established that the Lokayukta is a proper and
necessary party in the case before this Court, the other contentions of the
State petitioner as well as the petitioner in MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023
pales into insignificance.
37. In view of the above, this Court finds that the presence of the
respondent Nos. 1 & 2 in MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 and respondent
Nos. 2 & 3 in MC[WP(C)] No. 208 of 2023 that is, the Chairperson and
Secretary, Meghalaya Lokayukta are necessary as far as these
20
proceedings herein are concerned.
38. The objection raised by the petitioners respectively are
hereby rejected. MC[WP(C)] No. 199 of 2023 and MC[WP(C)] No. 208
of 2023 are accordingly dismissed as devoid of merits.
39. Applications disposed of.
Judge
Meghalaya
31.05.2024
“D. Nary, PS”
21