Whether Grievance In Complaint Can Be Entertained By Lokayukta Depends On Case To Case Basis, No Law Can Be Laid By Court: Kerala HC

The Kerala High Court recently held that any question as to whether the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta can entertain any complaint regarding any grievance or allegation, would have to be ascertained according to the factual circumstances, and on a case to case basis and no law can be laid down by the Court in this regard.

The Division Bench comprising of Justice S. Manikumar and Justice Shaji P. Chaly further directed the authorities under various statues such as Upa Lok Ayukta, Human Rights Commission, Juvenile Justice Board, Civil Courts etc., to take note of and abide by the directions issued by the same court in another case W. P. (C) No. 18950 of 2018, while dealing with any complaints as to grievance or allegation in respect of the participation of students in cultural or other events at District or State Levels.

In that judgment, the Division Bench had cautioned such quasi-judicial bodies/authorities from permitting candidates who had not obtained the desired first or second position and might have been placed third or several levels below, from being made eligible to participate at the higher level of competition.

The instant case dealt with a batch of Writ Petitions which challenged the orders passed by the Upa Lok Ayukta where, on receipt of complaints made to it, had ordered that the complainant/respondent in the instant case, would be permitted to participate in 'Tamil Padyam Chollal-HSS General' at the Kerala State School Kalolsavam, 2017-18.

The complaint was made pursuant to the student being aggrieved by the order dismissing the appeal by the respondent by the Appeal Committee of the Alappuzha Revenue District School Kalolsavam, which, it was contended by the complainant/respondent herein, was done belatedly.

The petitions were filed in the instant case on the ground that as per Section 7 (1) of the Lok Ayukta Act, 1999, the Lok Ayukta or Upa Lok Ayukta, may investigate any action in any case where a complaint involving a grievance or allegation is made in respect of such actions, however, as the instant complaints did not reveal any grievance in consequence of maladministration, or any maladministration of any sort by any administrative functionary or any allegation with regard to any public servant, the authority did not have the jurisdiction to pass the same.

It was contended by the Senior Government Pleader, V. Tekchand, on behalf of the petitioners that as per Section 12 of the Act, the Lok Ayukta can only make recommendations to the concerned authorities, and not any positive directions. It was emphasized that it was settled law that no interim reliefs could be granted where there was no power to grant such final reliefs.

It was further pointed out that if indeed, there was any 'maladministration', according to Section 12 (1) of the Act, the Upa Lok Ayukta could only forward a report to the concerned authority, which report was also not binding in nature. It was submitted that the order dismissing the appeal preferred by the respondent was not unreasonable or discriminatory, and even if it were, it could not be termed as 'maladministration'. It was further added that the delay occurred merely due to the large number of appeals before it. 

It was further submitted by the counsel for the petitioners that as per clause 11.02 of the Kerala School Youth Festival Manual, only the candidate who got "A" Grade and the topmost marks in an item in Revenue District Youth Festival could participate in the State School Youth Festival, and the impugned the order of the Upa Lok Ayukta resulted in a situation where two candidates from a single revenue district would take part in a particular item. Since the same was beyond the scope of the powers and since Lok Ayukta is a statutory creation, it has no inherent jurisdiction, either to decide matters for which no power had been conferred upon it by a statute.

The Division Bench decision in W.P. (C) 405 of 2018 was also relied upon and in this light, it was prayed by the counsel that a law would be laid down by the Court on the aspect of entertaining a complaint before the Lok Ayukta in respect of allegation or grievance regarding the assessment of performance of the participants in the programmes or Youth Festivals conducted. In this case, as aforementioned, the Division Bench had laid down the difficulties involved when students in the lower positions at the feeder level were also permitted to take part by the Lok Ayukta and Upa Lok Ayukta, and cautioned against the same. 

The case of Sweety v. State of Kerala was also brought to the attention of the Court by the Counsel for the petitioners wherein it had been observed that every school or college authorities have the discretion to frame their own rules and policies regarding curricular or extra-curricular activities of students, and it is only in extreme cases such as violation of fundamental rights that the Court would be justified in interfering with the decision of such authorities. The rules also envisage constitution of appeals committees as an 'abundant caution', whose decision would be final and conclusive, and not be interfered with by the Courts. 

It was in this light that the Court determined that whether a complaint involves a grievance or an allegation which can be entertained by the Lok Ayukta, can be decided only on a case to case basis after examining the facts involved, and supporting documents, and no law could be laid down by the Court in this regard.

Since the record of proceedings showed that there was a stay on the order of the Up Lok Ayukta permitting the complainant to participate in the event, and since the said event was already over, the Court did not find that the merits of the writ petition were required to be dealt with, and was accordingly disposed of. 

The respondents in the instant writ petition were represented by Advocate K.B. Pradeep.

Case Title: General Convenor, Kerala State School Kalolsavam, 2017-2018 & Anr v. Arundhathi Krishna J. & Anr., and connected cases

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ker) 471

Click Here To Read/Download The Judgment