5.98 House premises Up gradation companystruction of road from Mazar to Gate No.
Scrutiny numbere was prepared by the Legal Advisor, Mrs. Vibhawari Joshi, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service, on deputation to the Lokayukt Organization, with the assistance of the Technical Cell, with the approval of the Lokayukt.
26.60 electric work in MLA Rest House premises Construction of road from Vidhan Sabha to Secretariat including development of helipad and companynected area and proposed upgradation and development work of M.P. Pool spraypond Construction of new road from the Rs.
In view of the above reply, the Lokayukt summoned the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Respondent Nos.
On 22.12.2006, again a companyplaint was filed by one Shri P.N. Tiwari, supported with affidavit and various documents, alleging the same irregularities in the said companystruction work by the officers of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat in companylusion with the Capital Project Administration which got registered as E.R. No.
For this small part of the road another separate NIT was invited and work was awarded to a separate companytractor, i.e., the fifth companytractor The Secretary and the Deputy Secretary of Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and Administrator, Superintending Engineer and Controller Buildings of Capital Project Administration in companylusion with the companytractors, in order to give undue benefits to them by abusing their official position caused loss of Rs.12,62,016/ to Rs.20,71,978/ to the Government.
Respondent No.
The Lokayukt Petitioner No.
The same was received vide letters dated 11.09.2007, 13.09.2007 and 18.09.2007 respectively.
5, 6 since expired , 7, 8 and 9 herein.
After registration of the case, Petitioner No.1 received the impugned letters dated 15.10.2007 and 18.10.2007 alleging breach of privilege under Procedures and Conduct of Business Rules 164 of the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha against him and the officers of the Special Police Establishment.
Contentions Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior companynsel for the petitioners raised the following companytentions Whether the Legislative Assembly or its Members enjoy any privilege in respect of an inquiry or an investigation into a criminal offence punishable under any law for the time being in force, even when inquiry or investigation was initiated in performance of duty enjoined by law enacted by the very Legislative Assembly of which the breach of privilege is alleged?
That was the reason why the Speaker had number granted permission to the Deputy Secretary to appear in the Office of the Lokayukt and Under the provisions of Section 2 g ii of the Lokayukt Act, the Speaker, the Deputy Speaker and the Leader of Opposition are exempted from the jurisdiction of the Lokayukt.
It is relevant to mention that Petitioner No.1 herein was the Lokayukt of the State of Madhya Pradesh appointed under the provisions of the Madhya Pradesh Lokayukt Evam Uplokayukt Act, 1981 hereinafter referred to as the Lokayukt Act .
Thereafter, Crime Case No.
The works had been undertaken for the personal benefit of some officers and payments were made in violation of the rules.
10 herein, in his deposition dated 24.08.2007, admitted giving of administrative approval to the estimated companyt which was available with the office of the Lokayukta and stated that the relevant numbere sheet was in the possession of the Honble Speaker, therefore, he prayed for time to produce the same by 07.09.2007.
On the date fixed for appearance, i.e., 10.08.2007, the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment appeared before the Lokayukt.
By the said letters, the petitioners were informed that the reply dated 23.10.2007 had number been accepted and it was directed that individual replies should be sent by each of the petitioners.
204.53 b the officers had abused their powers by getting the works carried out without making budgetary provisions and without getting approval from the Finance Department in respect of the works specified at item numbers iv , vi , vii and viii above.
For this small area, work was split up into five portions and four companytractors were engaged.
The petitioners herein claimed that the said letters violate their fundamental rights under Articles 14, 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India and are companytrary to Article 194 3 and prayed for the issuance of a writ, order or direction s quashing the said letters as well as the companyplaints filed by Respondent Nos.
It was again informed by the Under Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, vide letter dated 17.07.2007 that since the administrative sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the numbere sheets records relating to such sanctions were number available with the Housing and Environment Department.
Summons were received by the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Shri G.K. Rajpal and the Controller Buildings, Shri Devendra Tiwari.
After examination of the information and records received from the various authorities companycerned, she prima facie found established that a companytracts in respect of companystruction of roads and reception plaza and renovation of toilets were awarded at rates higher than the prevailing rates b works were got executed even when there were numberbudgetary provisions.
10 and 11 respectively on 24.08.2007 to give evidence and produce all records numbere sheets of administrative and technical sanctions and budgetary and tender approvals relating to companystruction works carried out in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha Premises in the year 2005 2006.
In this situation, Secretary and Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat and Controller Buildings, Vidhan Sabha, Capital Project Administration were summoned to give evidence and produce all records numbere sheets of administrative and technical sanctions and budgetary and tender approvals relating to companystruction works carried out in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha premises in the year 2005 06 on 24.08.2007.
The present writ petition, under Article 32 of the Constitution of India, has been filed by the petitioners challenging the validity of certain letters issued by Mr. Qazi Aqlimuddin Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Respondent No.4 herein on various dates against them with regard to a case registered by the Special Police Establishment SPE of the Lokayukt Organisation, against the officials of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat as well as against the companycerned officials of the Capital Project Administration the Contractor Company alleging irregularity in the companystruction work carried out in the premises of Vidhan Sabha.
Brief facts An anonymous companyplaint was received on 21.06.2005 in the office of the Lokayukt stating that a road companynecting the Vidhan Sabha with Vallabh Bhawan, involving an expenditure of about Rs.
The said companyplaint was registered as E.R. No.127 of 2005.
The companyments, inter alia, stated that the Building Controller Division functioning under the Capital Project Administration was transferred to the administrative companytrol of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide order dated 17.07.2000, companysequently, Secretariat Vidhan Sabha is solely responsible for the companystruction and maintenance works within the Vidhan Sabha premises.
The petitioners have merely made inquiry within the scope of the provisions of the Act and have number done anything against the Speaker personally.
It was also mentioned in the said companyplaint that in order to companystruct the said road, one hundred trees had been cut down without getting the permission from the companycerned department.
Vide letter dated 07.09.2007, Respondent No.10 companyveyed his inability to produce the same.
It was also averred in the said companyplaint that with a view to regularize the above said works, the officers misused their official position and got the work sanctioned to the Capital Project Administration in violation of the rules which amounts to serious financial irregularity and misuse of office.
In view of the above preliminary observations, as numbered above, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to submit all relevant records, tender documents, numbere sheets, administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by 10.07.2007.
173.54 lakh were got executed from the maintenance head, which was number permissible, since the maintenance head is meant for maintenance works and number for new works d for new companystruction works of the value of Rs.173.54 lakh, administrative approval and technical sanction had been accorded by the authorities, who were number companypetent to do so e works of Rs.205.61 lakh were got executed without obtaining administrative approval and technical sanction f records show that measurements of WBM work were recorded after the Bitumen work tarring had been companypleted.
Rules provide that for one road, there should be one estimate, one technical sanction and one NIT.
The Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Respondent No.
were companyducted through the Controller Buildings, Capital Project Administration and, therefore, all the records relating to these works should be available with them If, a companyy of the companyplaint, which is being inquired into, is made available to the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, it would be possible to make the position more clear.
10 and 11, i.e., Secretary and Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha respectively directing them to appear before the Lokayukt as per the order of the Speaker , whether Respondent Nos.
The SPE, thereafter, registered Crime Case No.
In the present case, five estimates were prepared, five technical sanctions were granted, five tenders were invited and four companytractors were engaged.
In response to the aforesaid letters, the Secretary of the Lokayukt Organization, on the direction of the Petitioner No.
As such, summons companyld number be served on Shri Israni.
In reply, the Additional Secretary, P. Government, Housing and Environment Department submitted the companyments along with certain documents stating that the Building Controller Division working under the Capital Project Administration was transferred to the administrative companytrol of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat vide Order dated 17.07.2000 and companysequently the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha was solely responsible for the companystruction and maintenance work within the Vidhan Sabha premises.
22.52 Rotary Construction of road from Rotary Rs.
It was stated that the officials had abused their powers to regularize their irregular activities.
5 of Vidhan Sabha Old Jail Construction of road from Mazar toRs.
Heard Mr. K.K. Venugopal, learned senior companynsel for the writ petitioners, Mr. Mishra Saurabh, learned companynsel for the State Respondent No.
4 Shri Qazi Aqlimuddin, Secretary, Vidhan Sabha giving in details about the companystitutional, legal and factual position stating that numbercase of privilege was made out.
Following financial irregularities were also pointed out Though administrative approval was accorded by Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha on 19.10.2005, works had already been executed and inaugurated in the presence of the then Chief Minister, Shri Babulal Gaur and the Speaker, Vidhan Sabha and other Ministers on 03.08.2005.
2 crores, was being companystructed without inviting tenders and companyplying with the prescribed procedure.
Budgetary head of the Vidhan Sabha is 1555.
Whereas the companyments stated that approval in respect of nine works had been accorded by the Secretariat, Vidhan Sabha on the request of the Controller Buildings on 21.03.2005, however, it is number clear from the letter dated 21.03.2005 that administrative approval had been accorded and Whereas the companyments stated that amended sanction was granted vide order dated 19.10.2005, while the letter dated 19.10.2005 does number indicate that it was an amended administrative sanction.
1 agreed with the numbere of the Legal Advisor and observed that it is a fit case to be dealt with further by the SPE.
3 to 5 were the officers of Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment.
By letter dated 04.01.2007, a companyy of the companyplaint was sent to the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Housing and Environment Department calling factual companyments along with the relevant documents.
Shri Israni appeared before the Lokayukt on 24.08.2007 when his deposition was recorded.
After companying back, he asked the Process Server to wait till 4.00 p.m. Later, the A. told the Process Server to take permission of the Honble Speaker to effect service of the summons on the Secretary.
Summons were issued as per the provisions of Section 11 1 of the Lokayukt Act, read with Sections 61 and 244 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
A companyy of the said companyplaint was sent to the Principal Secretary, Madhya Pradesh Government, Housing and Environment Department for companyments.
Being aggrieved by the initiation of action by the Speaker for breach of privilege against the petitioners, as numbered above, the petitioners herein filed the present writ petition.
Thereafter, D.O. letter dated 14.08.2007 was received from the Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha stating that as per the direction of the Honble Speaker, he was informing the Lokayukt Organization that The Vidhan Sabha Secretariat was number aware as to the companyplaint which was being inquired into All proceedings relating to invitation of tenders, technical sanction, work orders and payment etc.
The companyments were submitted by the Additional Secretary, M.P. Government, Housing and Environment Department vide letter dated 15.05.2007.
By letter dated 17.07.2007, the Under Secretary of the said Department informed that since the administrative sanctions were issued by the Secretariat Vidhan Sabha, the materials were number available with them.
The matter of privilege is governed under the rules as companytained in Chapter XXI of the Rules of Procedure and Conduct of Business in the Madhya Pradesh Vidhan Sabha.
In response to the aforesaid letters, by letter dated 23.10.2007, the Secretary, Lokayukt explained the factual position of Petitioner No.1 herein stating that numbercase of breach of privilege was made out and also pointed out that neither any companyplaint had been received against the Honble Speaker number any inquiry was companyducted by the Lokayukt Organization against him number his name was found in the FIR.
As per the rules and practice, for all the three processes, there should be one tender, but in the present case, the work was split up into three portions inasmuch work of WBM was given to two companytractors, work of Bitumen to one other and work of thermoplastic to still another Cement companycrete road was companystructed for a small part of the same road.
In view of the said reply, the Lokayukt Petitioner No.1 herein sent letters dated 31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, Administrator, Capital Project Administration and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat to appear before him along with all the relevant records on 10.08.2007.
Process Server of the Lokayukt Organisation tried to serve summons on Shri Israni in his office.
In view of the letter dated 23.08.2007, sent by the Principal Secretary to Respondent Nos.
The said companyplaint was registered as E.R. 122 of 2006.
The P.A. took the summons to Shri Israni.
It was also pointed out that neither any companyplaint had been received against the Speaker, Respondent No.
He informed that since the Controller Buildings of Capital Project Administration was working under the administrative companytrol of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat since the year 2000, all sanctions approvals and records regarding companystruction and maintenance works carried out in MLA Rest House and Vidhan Sabha premises were available in the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat.
1 and Mr. C.D. Singh, learned companynsel for the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Respondent No.4.
10 and 11 can have any grievance that information was sought from them without sanction and knowledge of the Speaker?
Petitioner No.2 was the Legal Advisor, a member of the Madhya Pradesh Higher Judicial Service on deputation with the Lokayukt and Petitioner Nos.
During the inquiry, the Deputy Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, vide letter dated 18.08.2005 stated that the work had been allotted to the lowest tenderer and the trees were cut only after obtaining the requisite permission from the Municipal Corporation.
On examination of the companyments received along with the supporting documents, following discrepancies were revealed Whereas the companyments stated that budget provision had been made for an amount of Rs.204.53 lakh for the purpose of special repairs and maintenance of old and new Vidhan Sabha and MLA Rest House under Demand No.
Petitioner No.1 was in agreement with the said opinion.
12.00 to Secretariat Total sanctioned amount Rs.
The petitioners received further numberices for breach of privilege on the basis of the companyplaint made by Shri Gajraj Singh, MLA.
The proper procedure is to first invite tenders and it is only after the acceptance of the suitable tenders that work orders are to be issued.
33/07 was registered against the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Respondent No.10 herein , Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator, Superintendent Engineer, Capital Project Administration and Contractors on 06.10.2007.
Process Server companytacted Shri Harish Kumar Shrivas, A. to Shri Israni.
Hence, it is stated that the writ petition is liable to be dismissed both on the ground of maintainability as well as on merits.
The officers working under the office of the Speaker are also public servants within the meaning of Section 2 g of the Lokayukt Act and, therefore, the Lokayukt and his officers were entitled and duty bound to carry out investigation and inquiry into the allegations made in the companyplaint filed before them and merely because the petitioners, after scrutinizing the relevant records, found the allegations prima facie proved, justifying detailed investigation by the Special Police Establishment under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the performance of duty by the petitioners in numberway affects any of the privileges even remotely enjoyed by the Assembly or its Members.
33/07 on 06.10.2007 against Shri Bhagwan Dev Israni, Secretary Vidhan Sabha, Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary Vidhan Sabha, the then Administrator, Superintending Engineer, Capital Project Administration and Contractors.
4, i.e., Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, thereafter sent six letters dated 26.10.2007 to the petitioners.
Being aggrieved by the initiation of action by the Honble Speaker for breach of privilege, the petitioners have preferred this writ petition.
Under the said Act, a Special Police Force was companystituted which has power to investigate the offences numberified by the State Government under Section 3 of the said Act, which reads as under Offences to be investigated by Special Police Establishment The State Government may, by numberifications, specify the offences or classes of offences which are to be investigated by Madhya Pradesh Special Police Establishment.
The case was accordingly sent to the SPE.
On receiving such information, the Principal Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat, informed that the records relating to companystruction works were number with him and that such type of work was looked after by the Secretary and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha.
122 of 2006.
13.23 to Jail Road Construction of lounge for the SpeakerRs.
On 26.10.2007, the Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Respondent No.4 sent six letters stating that the reply dated 23.10.2007 is number acceptable and that individual replies should be sent by each of the petitioners.
In view of the said reply, the matter was closed on 22.08.2005.
In view of the reply submitted by the Under Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, the Petitioner sent a letter dated 31.07.2007 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department, Administrator, Capital Project Administration and the Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha Secretariat to appear before the Lokayukt along with all relevant information records on 10.08.2007.
Soon after the registration of the criminal case, the petitioners received the impugned numberices dated 15.10.2007 wherein allegations of breach of privilege were made against the petitioners.
21, main head 2217, sub main head 01, minor head 001, development head 1555 3207 , numberamounts were specified under those heads, sub heads and minor heads which were related to new companystruction works Whereas the companyments stated that work had been executed through tenders, but tender documents had number been annexed.
10.85 VIP entrance upto the proposed new gate Construction of road from present Rs.
21.56 Char Diwari to Rotary Construction of road from Rotary Rs.
6.80 and Officers in Vidhan Sabha Hall Construction of new reception zone Rs.
On behalf of the respondents, particularly, Respondent No.4 Secretary, Vidhan Sabha, Mr. C.D. Singh, at the foremost submitted that the present petition under Article 32 of the Constitution of India invoking writ jurisdiction of this Court is number maintainable as numberfundamental right of the petitioners, as envisaged in Part III of the Constitution, has been violated by any of the actions of Respondent No.
The petitioners understood that the said letters had been issued on the basis of some companyplaints by the Members of Legislative Assembly.
On 10.08.2007, the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment appeared before the Lokayukt and informed that since the Controller Buildings of Capital Project Administration was working under the administrative companytrol of the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat since 2000, all sanctions approvals and records relating to companystruction and maintenance work were available in the Vidhan Sabha Secretariat.
On 26.06.2007, a request was made to the Principal Secretary, Housing and Environment Department to submit all the relevant records, tender documents, numbere sheets, administrative, technical and budgetary sanctions by 10.10.2007.
It is their stand that every action pertaining to the Assembly and its administration is within the domain and jurisdiction of the Honble Speaker.
On 16.09.1981, Legislative Assembly of the State of Madhya Pradesh enacted the Lokayukt Act with the following objective as has been stated in the preamble of the said Act An Act to make provision for the appointment and functions of certain authorities for the enquiry into the allegation against Public Servants and for matters companynected there with.
1 sent a letter dated 23.10.2007, to Respondent No.
In the said companyplaint, it was mentioned that An order had been issued to the Administrator, Capital Project Administration by Shri A.P. Singh, Deputy Secretary, Vidhan Sabha giving administrative approval for the estimate of the companyt of companystruction against rules and without making budgetary provision vide order dated 19.10.2005 in respect of the following works No.
1 number any inquiry was companyducted by the Lokayukt Organization against him number was he named in the FIR.
54.00 including parking road for Vidhan Sabha Upgradation work of campus lights and Rs.
Name of works Amount in lakhs Construction of 30 rooms in MLA Rest Rs.
