PATRICK SADA vs STATE OF JHARKHAND

D.N. Patel, J

This writ petition has been preferred for the following reliefs:-

“(i). For issuance of an appropriate writ/, order/, direction/ including Writ of Certiorari, for quashing/ setting aside the communication contained in

Memo No.1088 dated 24.07.2017 (Annexure â€" 12), issued by Respondent No.4 whereby and whereunder it has been directed that the learned

Lokayukta can only utilize the services of any Agency and/ or officers of the State of Jharkhand with prior concurrence/ consent of the State

Government, especially because the said letter has been issued contrary to the provisions of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 and with a deliberate

attempt to denude the learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand of the powers which have been conferred to him under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001;

(ii). For issuance of further appropriate writ/, order/, direction, including Writ of Declaration declaring that learned Lokayukta, Jharkhand has wide

powers in terms of Sections 10 and 11 of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001 for making preliminary enquiry as he deems fit under the Act, including

the powers for referring complaints containing “allegations†and/ or “grievances†to any public servant or other person for furnishing

information and/ or for producing such documents etc. which the learned Lokayukta deems appropriate for carrying out investigation under the

provisions of the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.

(iii). For issuance of a further appropriate writ/, order/, direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondents, particularly Respondent

No.1 to issue appropriate direction by way of circular/ notification or letter etc. to all the Departmental Heads of various Departments of the State of

Jharkhand as well as heads of various Districts of the State of Jharkhand including the Heads of various Government Companies, Bodies and/or

organizations substantially owned and controlled by the State of Jharkhand to render necessary and effective assistance to the office of the learned

Lokayukta in a time bound manner for carrying out preliminary enquiry under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.

(iv). For issuance of further appropriate writ/, order/, direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to allocate

adequate funds and/or budget to the office of the learned Lokayukta, Jharakhand to enable the learned Lokayukta to appoint officers and other

employees to assist the learned Lokayukta in discharge of his functions under the Jharkhand Lokayukta Act, 2001.

(v). For issuance of a further appropriate writ/, order/, direction, including Writ of Mandamus, directing the Respondent-State of Jharkhand to

forthwith and immediately deploy manpower and resources to the office of the learned Lokayukta, including a dedicated Investing team comprising of

suitable Police Officers for enabling the learned Lokayukta for discharge of his duties and functions as prescribed under the Jharkhand Lokayukta

Act, 2001.

(vi). For issuance of any other appropriate writ/s, order/s, direction/s which deems fit and proper for doing justice to the petitioner.â€​

Having heard counsels for both the sides, and looking to the facts and circumstances of the case, it appears that Annexure â€" 12 is basically a

document which is under challenge, issued by the Government. We have perused the document at Annexue â€" 12 dated 24.07.2017. This document

is nothing but an opinion formed by the Government with an advice by the first lawyer of the State of Jharkhand.

Be that as it may, such type of opinion formed by the Government, while interpreting a particular enactment, it can always be challenged by the

aggrieved party, by way of writ or by way of other proceedings before the appropriate forum. The legality and validity of such type of interpretation

by the Government can be challenged vis-a-vis the facts of a particular case, and hence, aggrieved party can always challenge the Annexure â€" 12,

which is an interpretation of a particular enactment made by the Government with the help or advice of their lawyers.

We, therefore, see no reason to entertain this writ petition at this stage, hence, this writ petition is, hereby, disposed of, reserving liberty with the

petitioner to challenge the circular or letter of understanding, issued by the State Government, which is at Anneuxre â€" 12, in the appropriate

proceedings, before appropriate authority or court.

With the said observation, this writ petition (public interest litigation) is, hereby, disposed of.