2nd Sept., 2026 Item no.D/L 29 Court No. 18 Pradip, A.R.(Ct.) In the High Court at Calcutta Constitutional Writ Jurisdiction Appellate Side Case No. WPA 23378 of 2026 In the matter of: Jagadish Chandra Barui …. Petitioner VS. The State of West Bengal & Ors. ….Respondents For the Petitioners: Mr. Amal Kumar Sen Ms. Sahina Sumi ….Advocates For the State: Mr. D.N. Roy, Ld. GP Ms. Soma Chakraborty Mr. Guddu Singh ….Advocates 1. Affidavit of service filed in Court today is taken on record. 2. The petitioner is aggrieved that he being investigated by the Hon’ble Lokayukta without following the due process of law. 3. Mr. Sen, learned advocate appearing for the petitioner submits that there is a gross violation insofar as the proceedings against him are concerned, on the following issues:- a) He is a public functionary covered under the West Bengal Lokayukta Act, 2003 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘said Act’). b) The complaint made by the concerned persons regarding embezzlement of fund on account of Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin, was made after a lapse of one year from the date of the alleged incident. Page 2 c) There is a clear bar under the said Act for entertaining such complaint under the Act beyond a period of six months. Thus, the entire complaint is barred by limitation. d) The petitioner is, presently serving as Deputy Magistrate & Collector in the district of Purba Medinipur and, therefore, as a public functionary no investigation ought to have initiated against him without giving him an opportunity to respond to the same. e) Section 18(3) of the said Act does not relate to the jurisdiction exercised by a Court under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. It is on these grounds that the order of the Hon’ble Lokayukta dated 23rd June, 2025 has been assailed in this writ petition. 4. Mr. Roy, learned Government Pleader appearing for the State submits on the following issues:- a) The petitioner is not a public functionary within the definition of the terms ‘under the said Act’. The petitioner qualifies as a public servant under the said Act and, is liable to be investigated by the Lokayukta. Under Section 8A(b) the authorities have a right to investigate an action or inaction and/or a complaint against such public servant. b) The public functionary is also defined in Section 2(13) while a public servant is defined under Section 2(11) of the said Act. c) The question of limitation is really an issue which has to be considered by the Hon’ble Lokayukta himself on account whereof under Section 8(2) of the said Act and particularly the proviso thereunder, the said authority has been vested with a Page 3 power to condone the timelines which has been provided for filing a complaint. d) The entire process initiated by this writ petition is premature in nature as, for the time being, the Hon’ble Lokayukta has merely sought for permission from the concerned authorities to proceed for an investigation against them, which includes the petitioner. No action has yet been taken. 5. I have heard the learned advocates for the parties, and considered the documents on record. 6. The facts are fairly simple and clear. The petitioner was the Block Development Officer (BDO), at the material point of time, when disbursement on account of Pradhan Mantri Awaas Yojana-Gramin for two persons had been credited to the accounts of two other persons leaving two persons who are entitled to it, without such disbursement. 7. However, immediately thereafter, the money was retrieved and was paid to the concerned complainants. 8. The complaints were made only against the Panchayat Member of the Kalitha Gram Panchayat which was carried by way of a complaint before the Hon’ble Lokayukta, on 30th July, 2019. 9. While dealing with the complaint case and upon a preliminary investigation caused by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, that it was found that such act of crediting to a separate account could not have been possible had it not been of the active collusion of the concerned BDO. 10. It was on the basis of this preliminary finding in the order dated 23rd June, 2025, that the Hon’ble Lokayukta has sought for leave Page 4 and/or prior approval from the concerned authorities to proceed against the petitioner. 11. The prior approval has not yet been granted nor has any steps been taken against the petitioner. It is this order of 23rd June, 2025 which has been assailed in this writ petition. 12. The concerned provisions to decide this matter, at this stage, under the said Act would be Sections 2(3)(iv), 2(3)(vii), 8, 8A, 16 & 18. 13. The Act is clear. The purpose of this Act is to ensure that public functionaries holding high office and public servants who are also engaged in high offices are brought within the realm of this Act to curb any dishonest and/or corrupt practice and to stop dishonest practice in the high echelons of service. It is for this purpose that the Act provides for several of such offices who have been brought within the realm of this Act. 14. The Act also provides a safeguard that, in the event, the Hon’ble Lokayukta finds a reason to cause investigation, prior leave and/or approval from a designated authority, which is separate for each head of public functionary and/or public servants, has to be obtained. 15. The preliminary enquiry does not entail any consequences except for obtaining leave from the sanctioning authority. It is at this juncture that the petitioner has rushed to this Court by way of this writ petition. No steps have been taken against the petitioner nor has any step purported to be taken, at this stage. The Hon’ble Lokayukta upon finding sufficient reasons has only sought for the prior approval/permission from their designated sanctioning authority which is completely in line with the provisions under the said Act as contained in Section 2(3)(vii) in the case of the petitioner. Page 5 16. There is no disruption of service of the petitioner nor has any action been taken against the petitioner insofar as his service is concerned which in any manner impedes his service record. 17. The petitioner will get an opportunity of responding to the complaint; if it is found that he is involved in the same, once the procedure envisaged under Section 10 of the said Act is set in motion. This will be set in motion only after the designated sanctioning authority grants sanction to the Hon’ble Lokayukta. This approval or sanction will set in motion the entire process. Without the sanction, there is no action yet against the petitioner. 18. Insofar as Mr. Sen’s argument on the issue of limitation is concerned, the same is subject to the proviso contained in Section 8(2) of the said Act. Only upon being satisfied, the Hon’ble Lokayukta has initiated such process. The money has been paid to the account of the complainant in November 2019, after lodging the complaint with the Hon’ble Lokayukta. This Court is not exercising jurisdiction under Article 227 of the Constitution of India and, is not sitting in appeal over an order passed by the Hon’ble Lokayukta. 19. Insofar as Sections 16 & 18 is concerned, it clearly limits this Court from entertaining such an application in view of Section 18(3) which is quoted hereinbelow:- “No proceeding, decision, finding or recommendation of (the Lokayukta) shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed or called in question in any court or tribunal.” 20. The aforestated Section specifies that no proceeding, decision, finding and/or recommendation shall be liable to be challenged, reviewed, quashed and/or called in question in any Court or Tribunal. The decision, finding and recommendation has not yet Page 6 been made and it is only the proceeding which is pending before the Hon’ble Lokayukta which, it has been made clear that in no uncertain terms in the aforestated provision cannot be called in question let alone quashed or cancelled in any Court. 21. It is clear that the action is also premature as no steps have been taken by the Hon’ble Lokayukta, at this stage, except to seek approval to proceed against the petitioner. 22. In view thereof, I find no merit in this writ petition. 23. The writ petition is dismissed. 24. There will be no order as to costs. 25. Urgent photostat certified copy of this order, if applied for, be supplied to the parties upon compliance of all requisite formalities. (Reetobroto Kumar Mitra, J.)