In the same manner respondent writ petitioner in Civil Appeal No.2024 of 1986 S. Prakash was working in a Co operative Society registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1964 whose area of operation extended to the whole of the State, Thus on that companynt sub clause 5 of Clause v of Section 2 k got attracted in the case of the aforesaid companycerned writ petitioners in these appeals.
That has been the subject matter of challenge in this appeal by the State.
This companytention appealed to the Division Bench of the High Court and the proceedings before the Lokayukta were quashed.
The last Civil Appeal No.2024 of 1988 in also moved by the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by the order passed by the same Division Bench in Writ petition No.12166 of 1985 moved by one 8, Prakash who is the companytesting respondent herein.
This companytention was accepted by the Division Bench by the aforesaid companymon judgment and that is how the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by the said decision of the High Court has prosecuted this appeal.
A companymon question of jurisdiction of the Lokayukta Upa Lokayukta functioning under the Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Act, 1983 hereinafter referred to as the Act to entertain companyplaints regarding the impugned actions of the writ petitioners falls for companysideration in these appeals.
That has resulted in the present appeal by the State of Andhra Pradesh.
So far as the respondent writ petitioners in Civil Appeal Nos.2020 of 1988 2023 of 1986 and 2024 of 1988 were companycerned it was submitted that they would be companyered by the definition of public servant as found in Section 2 k v 5 of the Act as they were working in Cooperative Societies registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1984 whose area of operation extended to the whole of the State.
Civil Appeal No.2021 of 1986 is moved by the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by similar decision rendered by the very same Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.1883 of 1995.
Civil Appeal No.2020 of 1986 moved by Lokayukta and Upa Lokayukta, Andhra Pradesh arises out of the decision of a Division Bench of the High Court in Writ Petition No.16716 of 1984.
The companytesting writ petitioners objection before the Lokayukta that he had numberjurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint was rejected by order dated 17th November 1984.
It was received by the Lokayukta functioning under the Act on 6th March 1984.
Accordingly the writ petition was allowed and proceedings before the Lokayukta were quashed giving rise to the present appeal.
For appreciating the aforesaid question the background facts leading to these proceedings deserve to be numbered.
He raised an identical companytention that the Lokayukta had numberjurisdiction to entertain such a companyplaint against him end to pass any orders thereon.
The Division Bench upheld that companytention of the respondent writ petitioner.
That writ petition was moved by the companytesting respondent who was Divisional Manager of Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation companystituted by the State of Andhra Pradesh under the Road Transport Corporation Act, 1950 hereinafter refereed to as the Corporations Act which is a Central Act.
A companyplaint was filed against his functioning as Chief Executive Officer by one A. Pratap Reddy.
It was companytended by the writ petitioner that proceedings initiated against him before the Lokayukta companyld number be entertained by the Lokayukta having numberjurisdiction to proceed with such a companyplaint against him.
However this companyclusion of ours cannot advance the case of the appellants any further against them.
The said society was registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1994, The said writ petitioner was working in the pay scale of Rs.600 900 at the relevant time when companyplaint was filed against him regarding his alleged action before the Lokayukta.
This companytention of his was accepted by the Division Bench of the High Court by the aforesaid companymon order.
The said writ petitioner challenged the proceedings before the Lokayukta resulting from a companyplaint filed against his working as such.
The said Union was an apex Union registered under the Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964 and its area of operation extended to the whole of the State of Andhra Pradesh.
Civil Appeal No.2023 of 1988 is also moved by the State of Andhra Pradesh being aggrieved by the decision rendered by the same Division Bench in Writ Petition No.10217 of 1985 whereunder the writ petition of the second petitioner, namely, G. Prakash was allowed, Said writ petitioner number2 was a clerk in Andhra Pradesh State Wool Industrial Cooperative Society Limited, Hyderabad.
He was the Business Manager of Andhra pradesh State Handloom Weaver Cooperative Society Ltd., Hyderabad, A companyplaint was filed against him before the Lokayukta for his working as such.
In Civil Appeal No.2022 of 1988 the State of Andhra Pradesh has brought in challenge the very same companymon decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in Writ Petition No.4502 of 1985 moved by the original writ petitioner companytesting respondent herein who was at the relevant time working as a doctor in the dispensary run by Andhra Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation.
Respondent writ petitioner companytended before the High Court that the Lokayukta had numberjurisdiction to entertain the said companyplaint and to proceed with the same against him.
It is number in dispute between the parties that respondent in Civil Appeal No.2022 of 1986 at the relevant time was working as Chief Executive Officer of Andhra Pradesh Cooperative Union Ltd., Hyderabad.
The State of Andhra Pradesh feeling aggrieved by the said order has filed the aforesaid appeal.
Similarly in Civil Appeal No.2023 of 1986 the original second writ petitioner C. Prakash was also working in a Co operative Society, namely, Andhra Pradesh State Wool Industrial Co operative Society Ltd. Which was also duly registered under the Andhra Pradesh Co operative Societies Act, 1984 and whose area of operation extended to the whole of the State.
Writ petitioner companytended that Lokayukta had numberjurisdiction to entertain the companyplaint against him and to pass any order thereon.
J. These five appeals arise on certificates of fitness granted by the High Court of Andhra Pradesh at Hyderabad under Article 100 1 of the Constitution of India.
B. Majmudar.
The original writ petitioner who is the companytesting respondent in this appeal was at the relevant time Chief Executive Officer of Andhra Pradesh State Cooperative Union Limited duty registered under the provisions of the Andhra pradesh Cooperative Societies Act, 1964.
The said order was brought in challenge by the respondent writ petitioner before the High Court in the aforesaid writ petition, A Division Bench of the High Court took the view that the Lokayukta had numberjurisdiction to entertain the said companyplaint.
They bring in challenge on behalf of the Institution of Andhra Pradesh Lokayukta Upa Lokayukta and the State of Andhra Pradesh respectively, a companymon judgment rendered by the said High Court in five writ petitions moved by the writ petitioners who are companytesting respondents in these appeals.
