No One is PERFECT in this world. Not even the Judges! “It is the obligatory duty of the citizen and the lawyers to prepare the report card of the judges so that the check and balances can be maintained.” CJ S. Muralidhar 01. As the matter is found to be vague and frivolous and adventure of the lawyer to take his client a ride to the high court considering it as a picnic spot. 02. As the order was passed by misleading the court, fraud play or colussion. 03. The lawyer is instigating the litigant to approach before the Hon’ble High Court for the wrongful gain, fee etc. and to sabotage the proceeding running before the Lokayukta as they have not respect the the institution like Anti-corruption watch dog. The recent judgement passed by the Hon’ble Orissa high Court in the case between the WP(c) No.19979 of 2023, 21606 of 2022, 21427 of 2023, and other have misguided the Hon’ble court about the settle provision of law as to the submission of the view byt the competent authority in the compliance of the section 20(2) of the Lokpal And Lokayukta Act, 2013, which was adopted by the State of Odisha under the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2012 01. That, Lokayukta Odisha invited the submission of the view of the competent authority, i.e. Panchayati Department of the state Odisha in case No. LY-543/2021 on different dates but nothing has been done by the competent authority in nine months from the date of the first issue of the order to submit the view on Dt. 08-09-202 That, The Circular No. 03/2021 of the Lokpal India subjected as ” Procedure for the preliminary inquiry under the Lokpal and Lokayukta act, 2012 and at the para-19 provides for the submission of the inquiry report by the inquiry agency or E.O. if the view is not received in reasonable time but the Lokayukta, Odisha have not framed yet such as rule and keep waiting for the submission of the view by the competent authority and sending reminder after reminder which is nothing but the abuse of process of law as it is settled provision of law that if something is not available in the STATUTE then 01. It should be searched at some OTHER STATUTE 02. If the same is not found in another status then 03. It should be seached in the General Clauses Act, 1897 and if the same is not found in the General Clauses Act then 04. It should be searched in the DICTIONARY. The respondent of the cases appeared before the Lokayukta to file the time petition but took shelter in the Orissa High Court to sabotage the proceeding against the corrupt public servants to seek a favorable order on fraud play and collusion. The advocate general of the state who is the first law officer / VIDHI ADHIKARI concealed the material fact and settled the provision of law from the honorable court along with the others. The respondent/accused people of case No.LY-543/2021 do not have any locus standi into the matter between the Lokayukta and competent authority and received of view is not a sanction. the competent authority is not duty-bound to submit its view in every corruption case registered with the Lokayukta, Odisha. the submission of view is by the competent authority is not any kind of approval that the Lokayukta or investigating agency will wait for the same for an indefinite time. The applicant being the practicing lawyer has reason to believe that since the respondent accused people have an intuition that they have committed corruption and the same has been disclosed in the preliminary inquiry report the criminal prosecution is going to happen and only to stop the same they have taken the shelter of Hon’ble high court to sabotage the Lokayukta proceeding on fraud play and collusion and succeeded. It is needless to say that the Lokayukta, Odisha is following the Lokpal in framing any rule towards the Lokpal and Lokayukta Act, 2013 as the introduction of the form-A is nothing but the copy of the form-A introduced by the Lokpal in 2020 as before 2020 Lokayukta Odisha is inviting complaint on plain paper or through email. The question before the court was still unsettled as 01. Whether the Lokayukta failed to comply with the provision of section 20(2). ? 02. Whether the Lokayukta is duty bound to send reminder to the competent authority to submit the view? 03. Whether the competent authority is duty bound to submit the view ? 04. What the Lokayukta will do if the view is not submitted by the competent authority. whether they will wait for an indefinite period ? 05. Is any rule is there which compelled to Lokayukta to wait for the view of the competent authority. 06. How a view submitted or not is beneficiary for the accused of the corruption. why he is compelling court to give direction to the Lokayukta to wait for the view and not the competent authority to submit the view in time.? 07. Why the court of law admitting this type petition and adjudicating the same even if the petitioner has remedies before the competent authority? 08. If the LOKPAL is not waiting for the view to be submitted by the competent authorities for indefinate period then how the Lokayukta should be compelled for the same.?09.If the LOKAPA have made a rule towards the same then why the Lokayukta Odisha failed to do so.?
