A private contractor is not subject to Lokayukta jurisdiction merely by receiving a government contract.

The petitioner, a private company, participated in a Building Construction Department tender for the balance work of the Patna High Court Extension Project.

After verifying its experience and related documents, the Department found the petitioner technically qualified.

The petitioner was the lowest bidder and was awarded the contract after negotiation.

Respondent No. 7 challenged the award before the Lokayukta.

The petitioner sought to quash the proceedings and notices, contending that, as a private contractor, it was outside the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction.

The Department’s counter-affidavit accepted that the petitioner was not a public servant or public authority under the Act.

Whether the Lokayukta had jurisdiction under the Bihar Lokayukta Act to proceed against the petitioner, a private contractor, in connection with the award of a government contract.

Whether the notice and proceedings against the petitioner were liable to be quashed as being without jurisdiction.

The Court applied the Bihar Lokayukta Act, identified in the judgment as the Bihar Lokayukta Act, 2011 (also referred to in the judgment as the 2011/2013 Act).

It held that the Lokayukta’s jurisdiction is limited to matters and persons within the Act’s scope and statutory definition of a public servant or public authority.

A private contractor does not fall within that jurisdiction merely because it received a government contract.

The petitioner was a private company, and the complaint concerned the award of a government contract to it.

Applying the Act’s limited jurisdiction, the Court held that the public character of the contracting department did not, by itself, bring the private contractor within the Lokayukta’s remit.

The Court therefore treated the proceedings against the petitioner as jurisdictionally unsustainable, without determining the merits of the complaint concerning the tender award.

It quashed the proceedings in Lokayukta Case No. Z.05 of 2018 insofar as they related to the petitioner, together with the notice dated 15 March 2019 and the order dated 11 March 2019 to that extent.