Petitioner Directed to Pursue Pending Statutory Complaint Before Lok Ayog for Resolution

The petitioner filed a complaint (Case No. 13/2018) in January 2018 before the Chhattisgarh Lok Ayog (Respondent No. 1) against an Accountant (Respondent No. 2) and an Assistant Director of Agriculture (Respondent No. 3).

The complaint alleged corruption, misappropriation of funds, and the acquisition of disproportionate immovable properties in the names of the respondents and their family members.

Despite the submission of supporting documents and a reminder sent on 10.06.2019 regarding the impending retirement of Respondent No. 3, the Lok Ayog allegedly took no action for over two years.

The petitioner approached the High Court seeking a writ of certiorari to summon the records and a direction for the expedited disposal of the complaint.

Whether the High Court should exercise its writ jurisdiction to direct the Lok Ayog to decide a pending complaint within a specified timeframe due to alleged administrative delay.

The court exercised its jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, which provides the High Court the power to issue directions, orders, or writs to any authority for the enforcement of legal rights.

The matter pertains to the statutory obligations of the Lok Ayog, an independent body tasked with investigating corruption, to conclude proceedings in a reasonable manner.

The Court observed that while the complaint was filed in early 2018, the petitioner was unable to provide a current status update on the proceedings during the hearing.

The Court noted that the complaint was supported by an affidavit dated 24.01.2018.

However, in light of the uncertainty regarding what had transpired in the case since the filing of the writ petition, the Court found that a peremptory direction to the Lok Ayog was not immediately warranted.

Instead, the Court reasoned that the appropriate course of action was to require the petitioner to first re-engage with and "pursue his complaint" directly before the concerned statutory body.

The Court held that the petitioner must actively follow up on the matter at the forum where it originated before seeking further judicial intervention.