2025:JHHC:36348 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(S) No. 3145 of 2020 -- Abhay Nandan Ambastha, aged about 54 years, Son of Late Achyuta Nand Ambastha, Resident of Satya Enclave, Late Avenue, P.O.-Ranchi University, P.S.-Gonda, District- Ranchi, Jharkhand ... Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through the Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, Dhurwa, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S.- Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 2. The Secretary, Department of Revenue, Registration and Land Reforms Department, Govt. of Jharkhand, H.E.C. Township, Dhurwa, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi 3. The Deputy Commissioner, Ranchi, P.O. G.P.O., Ranchi, P.S. Sadar, District Ranchi, Jharkhand. 4. The Joint Secretary, Department of Personnel, Administrative Reforms and Rajbhasa, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, H.E.C. Township, Dhurwa, P.O-Dhurwa, P.S.-Jagarnathpur, District-Ranchi, Jharkhand 5. Mrs. Nirmala Devi, wife of Mr. Arjun Prasad, resident of Saket Nager, P.O. Hinoo, P.S. Doranda, District Ranchi, Jharkhand ...Respondents -- CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK ROSHAN -- For the Petitioner(s) : Mr. Rahul Kumar, Advocate For the Resp. Nos. 1 to 4 : Mr. Suresh Kumar, S.C(L&C)-II For the Pvt. Respondent : Mr. Jitendra Upadhyaya, Adv. -- 08/02.12.2025 Heard learned counsel for the parties. 2. The instant writ application has been preferred by the petitioner praying therein for quashing and setting aside the order contained in Letter dated 10.09.2020 issued by the Respondent No. 4, whereby in compliance of the order passed by Ld. Lokayukta, charges as against the petitioner has been directed to be framed. The petitioner further prays for quashing of the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by Ld. Lokayukta in 2025:JHHC:36348 2 Complaint Case No. 01/Lok (Revenue)-13/15, whereby a direction has been issued by Ld. Lokayukta to proceed against the petitioner in accordance with law. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has made the following submissions: (i) The petition filed before the Ld. Lokayukta and consequent order by directing the State Authorities to initiate any proceeding in accordance with law, is bad in law for the reason that it violates Rule 8(4)(ka) of Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001; (ii) The complaint made before Ld. Lokayukta is also not maintainable on the ground of specific stipulation in Section 10(4-A) of Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001, wherein there is specific stipulation that the Lokayukta shall not proceed with any investigation under this Act where the Supreme Court or the High Court issues any direction, order or writ under Article 32 or Article 226 of the Constitution of India. 4. Relying upon the aforesaid two clauses of Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, Ld. Counsel contended that on the one hand; the petition was filed after the stipulated period of 12 months which is apparent from the complaint itself (Annexure-5), which indicates the cause of action to 2025:JHHC:36348 3 be 12.03.2013 and admittedly; the complaint has been made on 17.06.2015. Ld. Counsel for the Petitioner further draws attention of this Court towards the writ filed by the private respondent which was disposed of by Coordinate Bench of this Court, wherein the private respondent has withdrawn the case in order to take appropriate remedy under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894. Relying upon the aforesaid two contentions, learned counsel submits that the impugned order dated 16.07.2020 and also the consequential order/letter dated 10.09.2020, are bad in law. 5. Ld. Counsel for the private respondent tries to justify the order, but could not dispute the fact that Ld. Lokayukta shall not investigate any claim involving a grievance, if the complaint is made after the expiry of 12 months from the date on which the action complained against becomes known to the complainant in view if it violates Rule 8(4)(ka) of the Act and admittedly; by virtue of Annexure-5, which is the complaint itself, it is evidently clear that the cause of action arose on 12.03.2013; whereas the complaint was made on 17.06.2015. 6. From the record, it further transpires that the private respondent had also filed writ applications being W.P.(S) No. 3630 of 2013 with W.P(C) No. 4287 of 2013 which was dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the 2025:JHHC:36348 4 petitioners to avail appropriate remedy under the provisions of Land Acquisition Act, 1894; thus, there was no room for the complainant to make a fresh complaint before Ld. Lokayukta by suppressing the factual aspect of the writ application in view of Section 10(4-A) of the Act. As a matter of fact, this Court is having no hesitation in holding that Ld. Lokayukta in a most mechanical manner has passed the order dated 16.07.2020, whereby a direction was issued to the Departmental Head to take a decision and initiate action against the petitioner. 7. Accordingly, the order dated 16.07.2020 passed by Ld. Lokayukta, being beyond jurisdiction, is hereby, quashed and set aside. Consequently, the letter issued by the Departmental head dated 10.09.2020 (Annexure-8), whereby the 4th Respondent had directed to frame the charges against the petitioner is also bad in law and the same is also quashed and set aside. 8. As a result, the instant application stands allowed. Pending I.A(s), if any, also stand closed. (Deepak Roshan, J.) 2nd December, 2025 Jk Uploaded on 5/12/2025