1 Reserved on : 06.02.2025 Pronounced on : 17.03.2025 IN THE HIGH COURT OF KARNATAKA AT BENGALURU DATED THIS THE 17TH DAY OF MARCH, 2025 BEFORE THE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M. NAGAPRASANNA WRIT PETITION No.11933 OF 2023 (GM - RES) BETWEEN: 1 . SMT.S.LAXMI W/O SRI RAMESH NAYAK AGED 45 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE ADD.: MACHIHALLI, DAVANGERE – 583 137. 2 . SRI SURENDRA G.S., S/O SHIVANANDAPPA AGED 48 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE ADD.: RAMAGONDANAHALLI DAVANAGERE – 583 137. 3 . SRI SRINIVAS H., S/O VENKATASWAMY AGED 52 YEARS, OCC. SERVICE ADD.:NO.266, KANAMADAGU, ALUR BELLARY - 583 218. ... PETITIONERS (BY SRI VENKATESH P.DALWAI, ADVOCATE) R 2 AND: 1 . THE ADDL. DIRECTOR GENERAL OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA M.S.BUILDING BENGALURU – 1. 2 . THE SUPERINTENDENT OF POLICE KARNATAKA LOKAYUKTA DAVANAGERE – 583 137. ... RESPONDENTS (BY SRI VENKATESH ARABATTI, ADVOCATE) THIS WRIT PETITION IS FILED UNDER ARTICLES 226 AND 227 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA READ WITH SECTION 482 OF CR.P.C., PRAYING TO DECLARE THAT ALL PROCEDURE / INVESTIGATION / ENQUIRY CONDUCTED BY THE R1 AND 2 PURSUANT TO COMPLAINT DATED 20/04/2019 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURE A IS NULL AND VOID AND CONTRARY TO SECTION 17-A OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT 1988 AND ALSO CONTRARY TO LAW LAID DOWN BY HON’BLE APEX COURT IN CASE OF LALITA KUMARI V/S STATE OF UP REPORTED IN 2014(2) SCC PAGE I; CONSEQUENTLY DIRECT THE RESPONDENT NO.1 AND 2 TO ACT AND CONSIDER THE REPORT DATED 24-06-2022 PRODUCED AT ANNEXURES – E AND E1. THIS WRIT PETITION HAVING BEEN HEARD AND RESERVED FOR ORDERS ON 06.02.2025, COMING ON FOR PRONOUNCEMENT THIS DAY, THE COURT MADE THE FOLLOWING:- 3 CORAM: THE HON'BLE MR JUSTICE M.NAGAPRASANNA CAV ORDER The petitioners are before this Court seeking a declaration that the inquiry/investigation conducted pursuant to registration of a complaint on 20-04-2019 as null and void. 2. Heard Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai, learned counsel appearing for the petitioners and Sri Venkatesh Arabatti, learned counsel appearing for the respondents. 3. Sans details, facts in brief, germane are as follows:- The 1st petitioner was working as a Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayat, Jagalur, Davangere District during the year 2015-16. The 2nd petitioner preceded the 1st petitioner as Chief Officer of the said Pattana Panchayat during the year 2014-15. The 3rd petitioner was working as Junior Engineer at the same place when both petitioners 1 and 2 were functioning at Pattana Panchayat. After their exit, one anonymous complaint is sent to the 1st respondent/ Lokayukta. On the said complaint, respondents 1 and 2 started 4 investigation/inquiry and collected documents. No FIR was registered. Correspondences between the 1st respondent and other wings of the Government galore for collection of material. The petitioners then come to know of the respondents seeking permission under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘the Act’ for short) for conduct of investigation through their respective Departments and all those departments requesting the closure of the permission, as the entire collection of documents and other information based on anonymous complaint had already been undertaken by the Lokayukta. In the light of entire process of inquiry concluding even before registration of crime or permission being taken under Section 17A of the Act, contending that the entire preliminary inquiry is null and void, the petitioners are at the doors of this Court, seeking a declaration that collection of material by the 2nd respondent even before approval under Section 17A and registration of a FIR is null and void. 4. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioners Sri Venkatesh P. Dalwai would vehemently contend that for three years the Lokayukta has conducted inquiry or investigation and it 5 collected materials against the petitioners. This is contrary to law. The procedure is, after receipt of the complaint a prior approval being taken, FIR registered and then investigation commences. None of these procedures are followed and now permission is sought under Section 17A of the Act after collection of materials. Therefore, the learned counsel would submit that there cannot be investigation prior to registration of crime itself. 5. Per contra, the learned counsel Sri Venkatesh Arabatti appearing for respondents taking this Court through the statement of objections would contend that in terms of the judgment of the Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI v. GOVERNMENT OF UTTAR PRADESH1, in corruption cases, preliminary inquiry so as to verify the veracity of the information or otherwise is permissible exercise. He would contend that what is done is a preliminary inquiry. Now to register the crime they have sought permission under Section 17A of the Act. Therefore, there is no procedural violation. Merely because plethora of documents are collected, it 1 (2014) 2 SCC 1 6 does not mean that it is investigation as known to law. It is only preliminary inquiry. He would seek dismissal of the petition. 6. I have given my anxious consideration to the submissions made by the respective learned counsel and have perused the material on record. 7. The afore-narrated facts are not in dispute. The issue for consideration is: “Whether collection of materials by the respondents before registration of FIR would amount to violation of Section 17A of the Act or otherwise?” 8. The entire fulcrum of the lis revolves round compliance with Section 17A of the Act. Therefore, it becomes germane to notice the genesis of Section 17A of the Act and its purport. Section 17A of the Act was brought into force on 26-07-2018, it was one of those amendments to the Prevention of Corruption Act along with a slew of amendments, by the Amending Act of 2018. Section 17A runs as follows: 7 “17-A. Enquiry or inquiry or investigation of offences relatable to recommendations made or decision taken by public servant in discharge of official functions or duties.— No police officer shall conduct any enquiry or inquiry or investigation into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under this Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval - (a) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of the Union, of that Government; (b) in the case of a person who is or was employed, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, in connection with the affairs of a State, of that Government; (c) in the case of any other person, of the authority competent to remove him from his office, at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed: Provided that no such approval shall be necessary for cases involving arrest of a person on the spot on the charge of accepting or attempting to accept any undue advantage for himself or for any other person: Provided further that the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month.” In terms of the above extracted provision of law, introduced by an amendment, no Police Officer shall conduct any enquiry, inquiry or 8 investigation, into any offence alleged to have been committed by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where the alleged offence is relatable to any recommendation made or decisions taken by such public servant in discharge of his official functions or duties, without the previous approval of the Competent Authority. 9. Clause (a) thereof provides that in case of public servant who is or was employed in connection with the affairs of the Union at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed, the previous approval of the Central Government shall be obtained. Clause (b) likewise provides that in case of a public servant who is or was an employee in connection with the affairs of the State at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed, the approval of the State Government shall be obtained before proceeding. Clause (c) provides that in case of any other person who comes within the definition of public servant previous approval of the Competent Authority to remove him from office, at the time when the offence alleged to have been committed should be obtained. The narrative 9 hereinabove cannot but indicate that the object of the Section was to protect public servants from malicious, vexatious or baseless prosecution. Therefore, if enquiry into the circumstances in which the alleged administrative or official act was done by the public servant or where malfeasance committed by the public servant, which would involve an element of dishonesty or impropriety is to be proceeded against, the approval of the Competent Authority is imperative under Section 17A of the Act. 10. The importance of Section 17A is also considered by the Apex Court in the case of YASHWANT SINHA v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION2. The Apex Court though did not consider as to how the previous approval of the Competent Authority has to be taken, but considered the amendment and its importance in the following paragraphs: "117. In terms of Section 17-A, no police officer is permitted to conduct any enquiry or inquiry or conduct investigation into any offence done by a public servant where the offence alleged is relatable to any recommendation made or decision taken by the public servant in discharge of his public functions without 2 (2020) 2 SCC 338 10 previous approval, inter alia, of the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office at the time when the offence was alleged to have been committed. In respect of the public servant, who is involved in this case, it is clause (c), which is applicable. Unless, therefore, there is previous approval, there could be neither inquiry or enquiry or investigation. It is in this context apposite to notice that the complaint, which has been filed by the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018, moved before the first respondent CBI, is done after Section 17-A was inserted. The complaint is dated 4.10.2018. Para 5 sets out the relief which is sought in the complaint which is to register an FIR under various provisions. Paras 6 and 7 of the complaint are relevant in the context of Section 17-A, which read as follows: “6. We are also aware that recently, Section 17-A of the Act has been brought in by way of an amendment to introduce the requirement of prior permission of the Government for investigation or inquiry under the Prevention of Corruption Act. 7. We are also aware that this will place you in the peculiar situation, of having to ask the accused himself, for permission to investigate a case against him. We realise that your hands are tied in this matter, but we request you to at least take the first step, of seeking permission of the Government under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act for investigating this offence and under which, “the concerned authority shall convey its decision under this section within a period of three months, which may, for reasons to be recorded in writing by such authority, be extended by a further period of one month”. (emphasis supplied) 118. Therefore, the petitioners have filed the complaint fully knowing that Section 17-A constituted a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation unless there was previous approval. In fact, a request is made 11 to at least take the first step of seeking permission under Section 17-A of the 2018 Act. Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 was filed on 24.10.2018 and the complaint is based on non-registration of the FIR. There is no challenge to Section 17-A. Under the law, as it stood, both on the date of filing the petition and even as of today, Section 17-A continues to be on the statute book and it constitutes a bar to any inquiry or enquiry or investigation. The petitioners themselves, in the complaint, request to seek approval in terms of Section 17-A but when it comes to the relief sought in the writ petition, there was no relief claimed in this behalf. 119. Even proceeding on the basis that on petitioners' complaint, an FIR must be registered as it purports to disclose cognizable offences and the Court must so direct, will it not be a futile exercise having regard to Section 17-A. I am, therefore, of the view that though otherwise the petitioners in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 may have made out a case, having regard to the law actually laid down in Lalita Kumari [Lalita kumari v. State of U.P., (2014) 2 SCC 1: (2014) 1 SCC (Cri) 524], and more importantly, Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, in a review petition, the petitioners cannot succeed. However, it is my view that the judgment sought to be reviewed, would not stand in the way of the first respondent in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 298 of 2018 from taking action on Ext. P-1, complaint in accordance with law and subject to first respondent obtaining previous approval under Section 17-A of the Prevention of Corruption Act." (Emphasis supplied) In the light of Section 17A creating a protective filter for vexatious and frivolous prosecution and complaints to pass muster to the rigors of Section 17A, I am of the considered view that it must be 12 observed with complete strictness bearing in mind public interest, and protection available to such officers against whom offences are alleged, failing which many a time it would result in a vexatious prosecution. This cannot however, be considered as a protective shield for the guilty, but a safeguard for the innocent. Therefore, its observance becomes mandatory. 11. Based upon the legislative mandate of Section 17A, the issue in the lis requires to be considered. The issue commences from the receipt of anonymous complaint. The complaint dated 20-04-2019 reads as follows: “UÉ, ಾನ ೋ ಾಯುಕ ರು ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ ೆಂಗಳರು. ಾನೆ, ಷಯ: ಜಗಳರು ಾಗೕಕ ಅ ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#ಯ$% ೋ&ಗಟೆ ಸ ಾರ(ಂದ ಬಂದಂತಹ ಅನು-ಾನ ಾಮ/ಾ ನ0ೆಯ-ೆ ಹಣ 0ಾ1 ಾ2ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಅ4 ಾಗಳ5 ಮತು ೆಲವ8 ಸದಸರು ಅಧ:ರು 2013- 2018 ರವೆ/ೆ ಅ4 ಾಗಳ5 ೋ&ಗಟೆ ಅನು-ಾನ ಲೂ& ಾ2ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಎ<.ಎ=.> ಅನು-ಾನ ಮತು 14ೇ ಹಣ ಾಸು ಅನು-ಾನ ಇರಬಹುದು ಮತು .ಆA..ಎ= ಇದು ಎಷು ಬರುತ -ೆ ಅದರ ಾಮ/ಾ ನ0ೆ(ಲ% 2016 ರ$% B1ೕಾಮ-ೇವ -ೇವCಾDನದ EಂFಾಗ Gಾರದ ಸಂ3ೆ ನ0ೆಯು# ತು . ಅ$% ಮHೆ ಬಂದು ಎಾ% ೊಳ!ೆIಾJತು ಅ$% Kೇ ಾ2 30 ಲPÀë ಾ(>ದರು. ಅದನL ೇMದೆ ೋಡು ಾ2>-ೇವ8 ಎಂದು ೆಲ ಸದಸರು OೇMದರು. ಅ$% Iಾವ ಾಮ/ಾ ನ0ೆ(ಲ% ಆ ಹಣ ಗೂಳಂ 13 ಆ"ತು. ನಗಾPವೃ(R Sೕಜೆ/ೆ 2 ೋ& ಅನು-ಾನ ಬಂ(ತು ಅದು ಏಾ"ತು ೇMದೆ ಗೂಂ0ಾJ ಾಡು3ಾ ೆ. Vೕ/ಾJ ಅನು-ಾನ Wಡುಗ0ೆIಾJತು 25 ಲ: ಅದು ಗುಳಂ ಇನೂL ಅೇಕ ಇ-ೆ ದಯಾ2 ಸೂಕ ತVXೆ ಾ2 ತYZಸDರ ರುದ[ ಸೂಕ ಕ1ಮ ಜರುJಸೇ ೆಂದು ಜಗಳನ ಾಗೕಕರ ಬೆದು ೊಂಡ ಅ. EAw dUÀ¼ÀÆj£À £ÁUÀjPÀgÀÄ zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè.” After the complaint, the incumbent Chief Officer of Pattana Panchayat, Jagalur is called for enquiry. He appears. Project Director of Davangere District is called for enquiry. He appears. On 05-03-2021 a circular is issued by the State Government that the Police should not act on anonymous complaints. It reads as follows: “ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರ ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE 15 ¸ÉÃE« 2021 ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರದ ಸ]Gಾಲಯ ^ಾನCೌಧ ¢£ÁAPÀ: 05.03.2021. ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಷಯ: ಸ ಾ ಅ4 ಾ/ೌಕರರ ರುದRದ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ (anonymous) zÀÆgÀÄUÀ¼À §UÉÎ. G¯ÉèÃR: 1. ¸ÀASÉå:¹D¸ÀÄE 15 ¸ÉÃE« 2019, ¢£ÁAPÀ:03.10.2019 2. ಾನ ಮುಖಮಂ#1ಯವರ &ಪZa ಸಂXೆ E - 2306163/2021, ¢£ÁAPÀ:20.02.2021 ಸ ಾ ಅ4 ಾ/ೌಕರರ ರುದR >bೕಕೃತGಾಗುವ ದೂರುಗಳ5 ೆಲವ8 ಸಂದಭಗಳ$% Gೈಯe ಕ -ೆbೕಷ, ಅಸೂf ಅಥGಾ ಪhವಗ1ಹ Yೕ2ತGಾJದು[ ಪhರಕ ಾE#/-ಾಖೆಗಳನುL ಲಭಪ2ಸ(ರುವ8ದಂದ Oಾಗೂ ಇಂತಹ ದೂರುಗMಂ-ಾJ ಸ ಾ ಅ4 ಾ/ೌಕರರು -ೈನಂ(ನ 14 ಾಯಗಳನುL ಮುಕ VPೕತಾJ ೆಲಸ VವEಸಲು 3ೊಂದೆIಾಗು# ರುವ8ದನುL ಗಮV>, ಇಂತಹ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಅಗಳನುL ತVXೆ/ೆ/!ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ ಕಡತ/ೊMಸುವಂ3ೆ Oಾಗೂ ಪhಣ Hಾಸ ಸEತರುವ ದೂರುಗಳನುL ಾತ1 ತVXೆ/ೆ/!ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸುವಂ3ೆ ಉೆ%ೕಖ (1) ರ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆಯ$% ಸೂಚೆಗಳನುL VೕಡಾJ-ೆ. mೕಲnಂಡ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆಯ$%ನ ಸೂಚೆಯನುL ದುರುಪSೕಗಪ2> ೊಂಡು ಅೇಕರು ನಕ$ Oೆಸರು ಮತು ನಕ$ HಾಸವನುL ಬಳ> ೊಂಡು ಾಜ ಸ ಾ ಅ4 ಾ/ೌಕರರ ರುದR ದೂರುಗಳನುL Vೕ2 ೌಕರರನುL ಅನಗತGಾJ ತVXೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸುವಂ3ೆ ಾಡು# ರುವ8ದನುL ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ ಸ ಾ ೌಕರರ ಸಂಘವ8 ಾನ ಮುಖಮಂ#1ಯವರ ಗಮನ ೆn ತಂ(ರುತ -ೆ. ಇಂತಹ ಪ1ಸಂಗಗಳನುL ತ0ೆE2ಯಲು ಅಗತ ಸೂಚೆಗಳನುL Oೊರ2ಸುವಂ3ೆ ಾನ ಮುಖಮಂ#1ಯವರು ಉೆ%ೕಖ (2)ರ &ಪZaಯ$% ಆ-ೇB>ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಈ EೆLೆಯ$% ಪhಣ Hಾಸ ಸEತರುವ ದೂರುಗಳ5 >bೕಕೃತGಾ-ಾಗ, ದೂರು Vೕ2ರುವ ವe ಯ Oೆಸರು ಮತು HಾಸವನುL ಖ]ತಪ2> ೊಂಡು ಅ-ಾರ/ದೂರು-ಾರ ಅಗತ ಪhರಕ -ಾಖೆಗಳನುL ಒದJ>ದ ನಂತರ ದೂರು-ಾರರ ಆೋಪವ8 mೕೊLೕಟ ೆn ಕಂಡುಬಂದ$% ಅಂತಹ ದೂರು ಅಗM/ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4>ದಂ3ೆ ಾತ1 Kಾ1ಥqಕ ತVXೆ/ೆ/!ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸಲು ಆ-ೇBಸುವಂ3ೆ ಸೂ]ಸಾJ-ೆ. ಈ ಸೂಚೆಗಳನುL ಸ]Gಾಲಯದ ಎಾ% ಇಾXಾ ಾಯದBಗಳ5 Oಾಗೂ ಇಾXಾ ಮುಖಸDರು ತಮr GಾY ಯ$% ಒಳಪಡುವ ಅ4ೕನ ಕsೇಗM/ೆ #Mಸಲು ಅಗತ ಕ1ಮ ೈ/ೊಳ5tವಂ3ೆ #MಸಾJ-ೆ. («.gÀ«PÀĪÀiÁgï) ಸ ಾರದ ಮುಖ ಾಯದB” On 24-06-2022 the Officer of the ACB puts up a report upon these petitioners to the ADGP, ACB. It reads as follows: /ೆ: ಾನ ಅಪರ v$ೕ< ಮOಾV-ೇಶಕರು ಭ1xಾ!ಾರ Vಗ1ಹ ದಳ ನಂ.49, ಖVಜ ಭವನ ೇ< ೋಸ ರCೆ ೆಂಗಳರು – 560 001. 15 ಾನೆ, ಷಯ B1ೕ &.ಎ<.ಸುೇಂದ1, ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" ಮತು ಇತರರ ರುದR ಸ$%>ರುವ ದೂರು ಅಯ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL VGೇ(> ೊಂಡ ಬ/ೆy. ಉೆ%ೕಖ: 1) ತಮr ದೂರು ಅ ಸಂXೆ:ಎ>W/ ೇಂಕ/ೋz/zÀÆC /29/2020 : (ಾಂಕ:: 20/10/2020. 2) ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರು ( ಾಅ-4), ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , ೆಂಗಳರುರವರ ದೂರು ಅ ನಂ. ಕಂKೆ%ಂ|/ಇತೆ/1448/2019, ಸV ಾಸ-4 (ಾಂಕ:: 27/10/2020 3) 2.ಎ<.Y, ಎ>W •ಾiೆ, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರ !ಾರiಾ ವರ( ಸಂXೆ: ಎ>W/Yಎ</r«f/ºÉZï ¥Émï/49/2020, (ಾಂಕ:: 24-06-2022. 4) ಸ ಾರದ ಮುಖ ಾಯದB, ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರ ಸ]Gಾಲಯ, ^ಾನCೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಸಂXೆ:>ಆಸುಇ/21/Cೇಇ 2019 (ಾಂಕ::03.10.2019. - - - - mೕಲnಂಡ ಷಯ ೆn ಸಂಬಂ4>ದಂ3ೆ, ಜಗಳನ ಾಗೕಕರು ಎಂಬ Oೆಸನ$% 1) B1ೕ..ಎ<.ಸುೇಂದ1, ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%. 2)B1ೕಮ#. ಲˆ‰ೕ ಎ< ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪ|ಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣಗರ ೆ%. 3) B1ೕಮ# ಕಂಪಳಮr, ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣಗರ ೆ% 4) B1ೕ B1ೕVGಾಸ, eಯ ಅPಯಂತರರು, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%, 5) B1ೕ.ಎŠ.ಶbಾ‹, (b.ದಸ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%. 6), B1ೕ $ಂಗಾಜ, ಪ1.ದ.ಸ. ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ% ಇವರುಗಳ ರುದR ೋ ಾಯುಕ ೆn ದೂರು ಅ ಸ$%>ದು[, ಸದ ದೂರು ಅಯ$% -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%ಯ ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" ಯ$% 2013-18ೇ Cಾ$ನ ಅವ4ಯ$% ಎ< ಎ= > ಅನು-ಾನ ಮತು 14ೇ ಹಣ ಾಸು Sೕಜೆಯ2ಯ$% ಸ ಾರದ ಹಣವನುL ದುರುಪSೕಗಪ2> ೊಂಡು ಅವವOಾರ ನ0ೆ>ರು3ಾ ೆಂದು, ಈ ಬ/ೆy ಸೂಕ ಕ1ಮ ಜರುJಸೇ ೆಂದು, ೋ ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರು ( ಾC-4) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ ೆಂಗಳರುರವ/ೆ ಸ$%>ದ[ ದೂರು ಅಯನುL Yಐ ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರು ನ0ೆ>ದ[ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(Sಂ(/ೆ ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರು ( ಾC-4), ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ ೆಂಗಳರುರವ/ೆ ಸ$%>ದ[ ದೂರು ಅಯನುL Yಐ ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರು ನ0ೆ>ದ[ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(Sಂ(/ೆ 16 ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರು ( ಾಅ-4) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ ೆಂಗಳರುರವರು ಉೆ%ೕಖ(2)ರ ೕ3ಾ, ಮುಂ(ನ ಕ1ಮ ಜರುJಸುವ ಕುತು ಎ>W ೇಂದ1 ಕsೇ/ೆ ಸ$%>ದು[, ಸದ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL ಾನರ ಕsೇ"ಂದ ಉ-ೆ[ೕಶ(1)ರ ೕ3ಾ !ಾರiೆ/ಾJ •ೋ$ೕ< ಉKಾ4ೕ:ಕರು. -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ಎ>W v$ೕ< •ಾiೆರವ/ೆ ಕಳ5EಸಾJತು . B1ೕ ಮಧುಸೂಧŠ >. Yಐ., ಎ>W •ಾiೆ, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರು ಉೆ%ೕಖ(3)ರ ೕ3ಾ ತಮr !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL ಸ$%>ದು[, ಸದಯವರು ಸ$%>ದ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯ$% ಉೆ%ೕಖ-04 ರ ಸ ಾರದ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆಯನbಯ ಪhಣ Hಾಸ ಸEತರುವ ದೂರುಗಳನುL ಾತ1 ತVXೆ/ೆ/!ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸಲು Oಾಗೂ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ದೂರು ಅಗಳನುL ತVXೆ/!ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ ದೂರು ಅಗಳನುL ಕಡತ/ೊMಸೇ ೆಂದು ಸೂ]>ರುವ8ದಂದ ಸದ ದೂರು ಅಯು ಸIಾದ Oೆಸರು ಮತು ಪhಣ Hಾಸಲ%ದ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಅIಾJರುವ8ದಂದ ¸ÀzÀj CfðAiÀÄ !ಾರiೆಯನುL ಮು ಾ ಯ ಾಡಲು ೋದ[ನುL 2.ಎ<.Y. -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರು BŽಾರಸು• ಾ2 !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL ಸ$%>ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಸದ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL ಪBೕ$>ದು[, !ಾರiಾ4 ಾಗಳ ವರ(ಯಂತ. ಅIಾJರುವ8ದಂದ, ಉೆ%ೕಖ-4ರ ಸ ಾರದ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆಯಂ3ೆ ದೂರು ಅಯ !ಾರiೆಯನುL ಮು ಾ ಯ ಾಡಲು ೋರು3ಾ , !ಾರiಾ4 ಾಯವರು ಸ$%>ರುವ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL Oಾಗೂ ಮೂಲ ಅಯನುL ಇದೊಂ(/ೆ ಲಗ# > ಸ$%ಸಾJ-ೆ. ತಮr ನಂಬು/ೆಯ (ಜಯಪ1 ಾ• ಐYಎ<) v$ೕ< ಅ4ೕ:ಕರು ಭ1xಾ!ಾರ Vಗ1ಹ ದಳ. ಪhವ ವಲಯ -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ” The ACB then puts up a detailed report upon these petitioners along with others. Insofar as it concerns these petitioners, it reads as follows: “…. …. …. ನಂತರ B1ೕ ಮುCಾ z ಅಹಮ‘, v$ೕ< Vೕ:ಕರು ಕೃತGಾJ !ಾರiೆ ಾ2. ಅಯ$% ಆೋY>ರುವಂ3ೆ ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" GಾY ಯ$% 2015 ಂದ 2017ೇ Cಾ$ನವೆ/ೆ ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" ಕತವ VವE>ದ 1)B1ೕ..ಎ<.ಸುೇಂದ1, 17 ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , 2)B1ೕಮ#, ಲˆ‰ೕ ಎ<. ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%, 3)B1ೕಮ#, ಕಂಪಳಮr, ಮುXಾ4 ಾ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%. 4)B1ೕ, B1ೕVGಾಸ, eಯ ಅPಯಂತರರು, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ%. 5) B1ೕ.ಎŠ.ಶbಾ‹, (bದಸ, ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ" , 6)B1ೕ.ಅಂಗಾಜ, ಪ1.ದ.ಸ. ಇವರುಗಳ5 ಸ ಾರದ ಹಣ ದುರುಪSೕಗಪ2> ೊಂಡು ಅವವOಾರ ನ0ೆ>ರು3ಾ ೆಂ3ಾ ಕಂಡು ಬಂ(ರುತ -ೆ ಎಂದು v$ೕ< ಅ4ೕ:ಕರು (ಪ1Fಾರ) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ರವ/ೆ (ಾಂಕ:30.09.2019 ರಂದು ತಮr !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL Vೕ2ರು3ಾ ೆ. ೋ ಾಯುಕ v$ೕ< Vೕ:ಕರವರ ಯ’ಾ !ಾರiಾ ವರ(ಯನುL v$ೕ< ಅ4ೕ:ಕರು (ಪ1Fಾರ) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ, ರವರು ಾನ ಅಪರ v$ೕ< ಮOಾV-ೇಶಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , ೆಂಗಳರುರವ/ೆ ಸ$%> ೊಂ2ರು3ಾ ೆ. ನಂತರ (ಾಂಕ: 27.10.2020 ರಂದು ಉೆ%ೕಖ-1ರ ೕ3ಾ ಪ1Fಾರ ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರು ( ಾನೂನು ಅPKಾ1ಯ-4) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರು ಾನ ಎ2Y ಎ>W, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವ/ೆ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ದೂರು ಅಯ ನಕಲು ಪ1#, ೋ ಾಯುಕ . ಎ< Y ರವರ Bರ>•ನ ವರ(Sಂ(/ೆ ಸೂಕ ಕ1ಮ ೈ/ೊಂಡು, ೈ/ೊಂಡ ಕ1ಮದ ಬ/ೆy ವರ(ಯನುL Vೕಡುವಂ3ೆ ಸೂ]> ಕಳ5E>ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಉೆ%ೕಖ-2ರ ೕ3ಾ ಾನರ ಕsೇ"ಂದ ಮುಂ(ನ ಕ1ಮ ೈ/ೊಳ5tವ ಕುತು ಸದ ವರ(ಯನುL v$ೕ< ಅ4ೕ:ಕರು, ಎ>W, ಪhವ ವಲಯ. -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರ ಮುXಾಂತರ -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ಎ>W v$ೕ< •ಾa/ೆ ಕಳ5E>ದ[ನುL (ಾಂಕ:02.12.2020 ರಂದು >bೕಕ>. ಪBೕ$>ದು[. v$ೕ< ಅ4ೕ:ಕರು, (ಪ1Fಾರ) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರ BŽಾರ>•ನ ವರ(ಯಂ3ೆ ದೂರು ಅಯ$% ಆKಾದೆ ಾ2ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ5, !ಾರiಾ4 ಾ ಆದ Y.ಐ. ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರ ವರ("ಂದ CಾWೕ3ಾJರುವ8-ಾJ ವರ( Vೕ2ರುವ8ದು ಇರುತ -ೆ. ಆದೆ BŽಾರ>•ನ ವರ(Sಂ(/ೆ Iಾವ8-ೇ ಪhರಕ -ಾಖಾ#ಗಳ5 Oೇಳ ೆಗಳನುL ಲಗ# > ಕಳ5E>ರುವ8(ಲ%. DzÁUÀÆå (ಾಂಕ:07.12.2020 Oಾಗೂ 03.02.2021 ರಂದು v$ೕ< ಅ4ೕ:ಕರು (ಪ1Fಾರ) ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆರವರ BŽಾರ>•ನ ವರ(ಯ ಆ^ಾರದ mೕೆ ಅಯ$%ನ 06 ಜನ ಎದುರು-ಾರರ mೕೆ Kಾ1ಥqಕ !ಾರiೆ ೈ/ೊಳtಲು ಅನುಮ# Vೕಡಲು ಎದುರು-ಾರರ ಸ:ಮ Kಾ14 ಾರ(ಂದ ಅನುಮ# ೊ2> ೊಡಲು ಾನರ$% ಮನಯನುL ಸ$%> ೊಂ2ದು[, ಸದ ಮನಯನುL ಪBೕ$> ಾನರ ಕsೇ"ಂದ ಉೆ%ೕಖ-3ರ$% ಸದ ದೂರು ಅಯು ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಅIಾJರುವ8-ೇ ಪBೕ$> ಮುಂ(ನ ಕ1ಮ ಾnJ ಅಯನುL ಮರುಮಂ2ಸಲು ಸೂ]> eÁÐಪನ Vೕ2ದು[ ಇರುತ -ೆ. 18 ನಂತರ ಪ8ನಃ ಸದ ದೂರು ಅಯನುL ಪBೕ$>ದು[, ಸದ ದೂರು ಅಯು ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ದೂರು - ಅIಾJದು[, Fಾರತ ಸ ಾರದ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಸಂXೆ: 1) DoPT's OM No.104/76/2011-AVD.1 dated:18/10/2013 & 18/06/2014 gÀ°è No action would be taken on anonymous/pseudonymous complaints' by Ministries/ Departments/ Organisations and such complaints should be filed.. Oಾಗೂ ಾಯದB, ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರದ ಸ]Gಾಲಯ, ^ಾನCೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಸಂXೆ: ¸ÀÄD¸ÀÄE/21/¸ÉÃE«/2019, (ಾಂಕ:03.10.2019 ¥ÀÆtð Hಾಸ ಸEತರುವ ದೂರುಗಳನುL ಾತ1 ತVXೆ/ೆ/!ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸಲು Oಾಗೂ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಅಗಳ ಆ^ಾರದ mೕೆ ಪ1ಕರಣವನುL ತVXೆ/ೆ !ಾರiೆ/ೆ: ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ ಅಂತಹ ದೂರು ಅಗಳನುL ಕಡತ/ೋMಸೇ ೆಂದು ಸೂ]>ರು3ಾ ೆ.” After all the aforesaid acts, permission is now sought under Section 17A. The petitioners come to know of the permission being sought from the hands of the respective Departments for inquiry or investigation under Section 17A of the Act. The petitioners then represent. The representation dated 17-03-2023 reads as follows: “mೕಲnಂಡ ಷಯ Oಾಗೂ ಉೆ%ೕಖಗM/ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4>ದಂ3ೆ, ಈ ೆಳ/ೆ ಸEಾ2ದ ಾವ8ಗಳ5 ತಮr$% ನಂ#> ೊಳ5tವ8-ೇೆಂದೆ, ಈ Eಂ-ೆ ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#ಯ$% ಕತವ VವE>ದು[ ನಮrಗಳ ರುದR ಅಾಮ-ೇಯ ಪತ1ವನುL ತಮ/ೆ ಬೆ(ರುವ8ದು #Mದು ಬಂ(ರುತ -ೆ. ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#ಯ$% ಆಡMತ Oಾಗೂ ೋಧ ಪ:ದವರ ಾಜeೕಯ ಜಗಳಗMಂದ ಅ4 ಾಗM/ೆ ೆದ> eರುಕುಳ Vೕಡುವ8ದು, ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಪತ1ಗಳನುL ತIಾ> ತಮr ಇಾXೆ mೕಾ4 ಾಗM/ೆ Oಾಗೂ ತVXಾ ಸಂCೆDಗM/ೆ ನಮrಗಳ ರುದR ದೂರುಗಳನುL ಸ$%>ರು3ಾ ೆ. ತಮಗೂ ಸಹ ಜಗಳರು ಾಗೕಕರು ಎಂಬ ಅಾಮ-ೇಯ ಪತ1ವನುL ಸಹ ಬೆ(ರು3ಾ ೆ. ತಮrಗಳ ಆ-ೇಶದಂ3ೆ ಈ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಪತ1ದ$%ನ ದೂ/ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4>ದಂ3ೆ ಾನ v$ೕ< Vೕ:ಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ರವರು ಉೆ%ೕಖ (5)ರ ಪ1 ಾರ ಅ 19 !ಾರiೆ ಸಂಬಂಧ ಾE# ಮತು -ಾಖಾ#ಗಳನುL ಒದJಸಲು ಮುXಾ4 ಾ ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"# ಜಗಳರು ರವ/ೆ ಪತ1 ಬೆ(ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಆದೆ, ಆJನ ಮುXಾ4 ಾಗHಾದ B1ೕ ಾಜುಬಣ ಾರರವರು ನಮrಗಳ mೕ$ನ Gೈಯe ಕ -ೆbೕಷ(ಂದ ಈ ಅಾಮ-ೇಯ ದೂನ ಅಯ !ಾರiೆಯನುL ದುಬಳ ೆ ಾ2 ೊಂಡು ಸ ಾಲ ೆn ಸIಾJ ಾE#ಯನುL ಒದJ>ರುವ8(ಲ%. Oಾಗೂ ಇವೇ ಾನ v$ೕ< Vೕ:ಕರನುL ಕsೇ/ೆ ಬರುವಂ3ೆಾ2 ೊಂಡು ಇಲ%ಸಲ%ದ ಆೋಪಗಳ •ೊ3ೆ/ೆ ಅವೇ ವರ(ಯನುL ತIಾ> ಾನ ೋ ಾಯುಕ v$ೕ< Vೕ:ಕ/ೆ ನ”ಮಗಳ ರುದR ದೂರು Vೕ2ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಾನೇ ಸದ ದೂರು ಅಯು ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಅIಾJದು[, Fಾರತ ಸ ಾರದ : ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಸಂXೆ 1) DoPT's OM No.104/76/2011-AVD.1 dated:18-10-2013 & 18/06/2014 gÀ°è No action would be taken on anonymous/ pseudonymous complaints by Ministries / Department / organization and such complaints should be filed. ಎಂದು ಆ-ೇBಸಾJರುತ -ೆ (ಪ1# ಲಗ# >-ೆ). ಸ ಾರದ ಮುಖ ಾಯದB, ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರದ ಸ]Gಾಲಯ, ^ಾನCೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಸಂXೆ: >ಆಸುಇ/21/Cೇಇ/2019, (:03-10-2019 ರಂ3ೆ ಪhಣHಾಸ ಸEತರುವ ದೂರುಗಳನುL ಾತ1 ತVXೆ/ೆ / !ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸಲು Oಾಗೂ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ಅಗಳ ಆ^ಾರದ mೕೆ ಪ1ಕರಣವನುL ತVXೆ/ೆ / !ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ ಅಂತಹ ದೂರು ಅಗಳನುL ಕಡತ/ೊMಸೇ ೆಂದು ಸೂ]>ರು3ಾ ೆ (ಪ1# ಲಗ# >-ೆ). ಅದರಂ3ೆ ಾನ 2Y ಮತು ಐY ರವರು, ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ v$ೕ< ಇಾXೆ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರ •ಾಪನ ಸಂXೆ: >:01/67/¨ÉA.ನಗರ/2019/Fಾಗ-01, (:06-11-2019 ರ$% ಾಜದ$% ಸ ಾ ೌಕರರ ರುದR >bೕಕ>ದ ಅಾಮ^ೇಯ ದೂರು/ಪತ1ಗಳ ಆ^ಾರದ mೕೆ ತVXೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ, ಪhಣ Hಾಸ ಸEತರುವ ದೂರುಗಳನುL ಾತ1 ತVXೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸುವಂ3ೆ Oಾಗೂ ಅಾಮ-ೇಯ ದೂರುಗಳನುL ತVXೆ/ೆ / !ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ ಕಡತ/ೊMಸುವಂ3ೆ ಸೂ]>ರು3ಾ ೆ. ಾನ ಸ ಾರದ ಮುಖ ಾಯದBಗಳ5, ಕಾಟಕ ಸ ಾರದ ಸ]Gಾಲಯ, ^ಾನCೌಧ, ೆಂಗಳರು ರವರ ಸು3ೊ ೕೆ ಸಂXೆ: >ಆಸುಇ/15/Cೇಇ/2021, (ಾಂಕ: 05-03- 2021 ರ ಪ1 ಾರ ದೂರು Vೕ2ರುವ ವe ಯ Oೆಸರು ಮತು HಾಸವನುL ಖ]ತಪ2> ೊಂಡು ಅ-ಾರ/ದೂರು-ಾರ ಅಗತ ಪhರಕ -ಾಖೆಗಳನುL ಒದJ>ದ ನಂತರ ದೂರು-ಾರರ ಆೋಪವ8 mೕೊLೕಟ ೆn ಕಂಡುಬಂದ$% ಅಂತಹ ದೂರು ಅಗM/ೆ ಸಂಬಂ4>ದಂ3ೆ ಾತ1 Kಾ1ಥqಕ ತVXೆ ಅಥGಾ !ಾರiೆ/ೆ ಪಗaಸಲು ಆ-ೇBಸುವಂ3ೆ ಸೂ]ಸಾJ-ೆ (ಪ1# ಲಗ# >-ೆ). 20 ಈ ಪತ1ವ8 ಅಾಮ-ೇಯ ಪತ1GಾJದು[, Gೈಯe ಕ -ೆbೕಷ ಅಸೂf Oಾಗೂ ಪhವಗ1ಹYೕ2ತGಾJರುತ -ೆ. ಆದ[ಂದ mೕ$ನ ಎಾ% ಅಂಶಗಳನುL ಪಗa> ನಮrಗಳ ರುದR Iಾವ8-ೇ !ಾರiೆ / ತVXೆ/ೆ ಒಳಪ2ಸ-ೇ ತಮr ಹಂತದ$%fೕ ದೂರು ಅಯನುL ಕ2ತ/ೊMಸಲು ತಮr ಘನಸVL^ಾನದ$% Kಾ1–ಸು3ೆ ೕGೆ. /ೌರವಗHೆಂ(/ೆ, ತಮr ^ೇಯರು. (ಾಂಕ: 17-03-2023 ¸ÀܼÀ: ¨ÉAUÀ¼ÀÆgÀÄ 1) .ಎ<.ಸುೇಂದ1 ¸À»/- 2) J¸ï.®Qëöäà ¸À»/- 3) B1ೕVGಾಸ Oೆ— ¸À»/- 4) ಎŠ.ಶbಾಥ ¸À»/- 5) °AUÀgÁdÄ” The petitioner not being aware as to what happened, are at the doors of this Court, in the present petition, seeking the aforesaid declaration. 12. The respondent/Lokayukta files its statement of objections and places on record further details about the inquiry conducted, pursuant to receipt of anonymous complaint which is quoted supra. Section 17A approval is granted on 17-06-2023. It reads as follows: “ಪCಾ ವೆ:- 21 ಉೆ%ೕಖ(1) ರ ಪತ1ದ$% ಅಪರ v$ೕ< ಮOಾV-ೇಶಕರು, ಕಾಟಕ ೋ ಾಯುಕ , ೆಂಗಳರು ಇವರು ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#ಯ$% 2013-18 ೇ Cಾ$ನ ಅವ4ಯ$% ಎ<.ಎ=.> ಅನು-ಾನ ಮತು 14 ೇ ಹಣ ಾಸು Sೕಜೆಯ2ಯ$% ಸ ಾರದ ಹಣ ದುರುಪSೕಗGಾJರುವ ಕುತು ಜಗಳನ £ÁUÀjPÀgÀÄ, zÁªÀtUÉgÉ f¯Éè JA§ ºÉ¸Àj£À°è ¹éÃPÀj¹zÀ zÀÆgÀfð ¸ÀA§AzsÀ ¥Éưøï Vೕ:ಕರು ೋ ಾಯುಕ , -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ% ರವರು ಪBೕಲೆ ನ0ೆ> ಆKಾ(>ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ5 mೕೊLೕಟ ೆn CಾWೕ3ಾJರುವ8ದು ಕಂಡುಬಂ(ರುವ8ದಂದ ಆೋ¦vÀ ೌಕರರ ರುದR ಕಲಂ 17(ಎ) ಭ1ಷ!ಾರ ಪ1#ಬಂಧಕ ಾf[ 1988 (#ದು[ಪ2 ಾf[-2018) ೕ3ಾ Kಾ1ಥqಕ !ಾರiೆ/ತVXೆ ೈ/ೊಳtಲು ಸಂಬಂಧಪಟ ಸ:ಮ Kಾ14 ಾರ(ಂದ ಪhGಾನುಮ# -ೊರe> ೊಡಲು BŽಾರಸು• ಾ2ರುವ ಉೆ%ೕಖ(2) ಮತು ಉೆ%ೕಖ(3) ರ ತVXಾ ವರ(ಯನುL ಲಗ# ಸು3ಾ ದೂರು ಅಯ$%ನ ಎದುರು-ಾರಾದ B1ೕ .ಎ.ಸುೇಂದ1, ಮುXಾ4 ಾಗಳ5, ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#, ಜಗಳರು -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ೆ% ಇವರ ರುದRದ ಆKಾದೆಗಳ ಬ/ೆy !ಾರiೆ/ತVXೆ ೈ/ೊಳtಲು ಕಲA 17(ಎ) ರ ೕ3ಾ ಪhGಾನುಮ#/ಾJ ಸ:ಮ Kಾ14 ಾರವನುL ೋರಾJ-ೆ. ಪ1Cಾ Gೆಯ$% ವ>ದ ಅಂಶಗಳನುL ಪಾಮBಸಾJ Oಾಗೂ ಲಗ# ಸಾದ ತVXಾ ವರ( ಮತು ಪhರಕ -ಾಖಾ#ಗಳನುL ಪBೕ$ಸಾJ ಜಗಳರು ಪಟಣ ಪಂ!ಾ"#ಯ$% ನ0ೆ(ರುವ ಅವವOಾರಗಳ$% ಮುXಾ4 ಾಗHಾJ ಕತವ VವE>ದ[ B1ೕ .ಎ<.ಸುೇಂದ1, Oಾ$ ಸಹ ಾರ ಅPವೃ(R ಅ4 ಾ Oಾಗೂ ಾಾ˜ಾ4 ಾ, ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರ ಕsೇ, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ - ಉಪFಾಗ, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ಇವರು ಒಟು ™ತ ಅಂ-ಾಜು 50,94,547/- ರೂ.ಗಳ ಅವವOಾರ ನ0ೆ> ವರ(>ರುವ8ದನುL ಪಗa>, ಪ1ಕರಣದ ಸ3ಾಸತ3ೆಯನುL #Mಯಲು #ೕಾV>, VಯಾನುCಾರ ತVXೆ ನ0ೆಸುವ ಅವಶಕ3ೆ ಕಂಡುಬಂ(ರುವ8ದಂದ ಈ ೆಳಕಂಡ ಆ-ೇಶ. -: ಆಆಆಆ -ೇ -ೇ -ೇ -ೇ ಶಶಶಶ :- ಕ1ಕ1ಕ1ಕ1.ಸಂ ಸಂ ಸಂ ಸಂ:ಆA ಆA ಆA ಆA>ಎ< >ಎ< >ಎ< >ಎ</>ಬšಂ( >ಬšಂ( >ಬšಂ( >ಬšಂ(-4/04/2023-24 (ಾಂಕ (ಾಂಕ (ಾಂಕ (ಾಂಕ:17-06-2023 ಪ1Cಾ ವೆಯ$% ವ>ರುವ ಅಂಶಗಳ EೆLೆಯ$% B1ೕ .ಎ<.ಸುೇಂದ1, ಸಹ ಾರ ಅPವೃ(R ಅ4 ಾ/ ಾಾ˜ಾ4 ಾ, ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ ಸOಾಯಕ Vಬಂಧಕರ ಕsೇ, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ಉಪFಾಗ, -ಾವಣ/ೆೆ ಇವರ ರುದR ಜಗಳನ ಾಗಕರು ಾ2ರುವ ಆKಾದೆಗಳ ಬ/ೆy ಕಲಂ- 17(ಎ) ಭ1xಾ!ಾರ ಪ1#ಬಂಧಕ ಾf[ - 1 1988 (#ದು[ಪ2 ಾf[-2018) ರನbಯ !ಾರiೆ/ತVXೆ ೈ/ೊಳtಲು ಸ:ಮ Bಸು Kಾ14 ಾ ಾಪŠ 0ಾ|| ೆ.ಾ•ೇಂದ1 ಆದ ಾನು ಅನುಮ#ಯನುL Vೕ2ರು3ೆ ೕೆ. 22 ಈ ಆ-ೇಶವನುL ನನL ಸE Oಾಗೂ ಕsೇ ™ಹನ2ಯ$% (: 17-06-2023 ರಂದು Oೊರ2>-ೆ. ¸À»/- ( ಾಪŠ 0ಾ|| ೆ.ಾ•ೇಂದ1,) ಸಹ ಾರ ಸಂಘಗಳ Vಬಂಧಕರು ಕಾಟಕ ಾಜ, ೆಂಗಳರು.” A close examination reveals that the respondent/Lokayukta acting upon the anonymous complaint embarked upon elaborate enquiry, summoning officers, collecting documents and building a dossier, all before seeking an approval under Section 17A of the Act. To describe such fact finding as ‘preliminary’ would be to trivialize the legislative intent behind Section 17A. 13. The defence of the learned counsel for the Lokayukta is that, it is in the nature of a preliminary enquiry in terms of the judgment of the Apex court in the case of LALITA KUMARI supra. The Apex Court in the case of LALITA KUMARI has held as follows: “…. …. …. 120.5. The scope of preliminary inquiry is not to verify the veracity or otherwise of the information received but only to ascertain whether the information reveals any cognizable offence. 23 120.6. As to what type and in which cases preliminary inquiry is to be conducted will depend on the facts and circumstances of each case. The category of cases in which preliminary inquiry may be made are as under: (a) Matrimonial disputes/family disputes (b) Commercial offences (c) Medical negligence cases (d) Corruption cases (e) Cases where there is abnormal delay/laches in initiating criminal prosecution, for example, over 3 months' delay in reporting the matter without satisfactorily explaining the reasons for delay. The aforesaid are only illustrations and not exhaustive of all conditions which may warrant preliminary inquiry.” (Emphasis supplied) The judgment is of the year 2014. At the time when the Apex Court had rendered its decision, Section 17A of the Act was not in the statute book. For the first time Section 17A is introduced by way of an amendment on 26-07-2018. In terms of the amendment or in terms of Section 17A, for an inquiry, enquiry or investigation approval under Section 17A is mandatory. Even if it is construed that what the Lokayukta has done is a preliminary enquiry, it could not have been done without two instances taking place – one, approval under Section 17A of the Act, and two, the registration of 24 a FIR. Therefore, by no stretch of imagination, what the Lokayukta has done, can be considered to be some sort of a preliminary enquiry. It is a detailed enquiry or detailed investigation as found in Section 17A of the Act. If that had to be done, prior approval was imperative. 14. Therefore, all the acts done prior to Section 17A approval becomes null and void, as in the considered view of the Court it does not meet the necessities of Section 17A, as the entire edifice of enquiry erected prior to 17-06-2023 the day on which approval under Section 17A is granted, is built on procedural quicksand and cannot be sustained. This, however, would not mean that the petitioners can walk away evading investigation. If there are allegations of corruption against them, investigation in the least, is a must. The veil of approval under Section 17A is now in place. Therefore, by declaring that what is conducted prior to the grant of approval being null and void, I deem it appropriate to reserve liberty to the respondents to now investigate into the matter, in a manner known to law, and take the 25 issue to its logical conclusion, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. 15. For the aforesaid reasons, the following: O R D E R (i) Writ Petition is allowed in part. (ii) It is declared that the enquiry, inquiry or investigation of the kind conducted in the case at hand prior to 17-06-2023 is null and void. (iii) Liberty is reserved to the respondents/Lokayukta to proceed against the petitioners in a manner known to law, bearing in mind the observations made in the course of the order. SD/- (M.NAGAPRASANNA) JUDGE bkp CT:MJ