HELAL AHMADversusSTATE OF U.P. AND 5 OTHERS

         HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD
                        WRIT - C No. - 37535 of 2026

Helal Ahmad
                                                            .....Petitioner(s)
                                  Versus

State Of U.P. And 5 Others
                                                         .....Respondent(s)

Counsel for Petitioner(s)      : Ankur Mishra, Chandra Kumar Rai,
                                 Devansh Misra
Counsel for Respondent(s)      : C.S.C., Manas Bhargava

Court No. - 1
                 HON'BLE AJIT KUMAR, J.
                 HON'BLE SIDDHARTH NANDAN, J.

1. Heard Shri Chandra Kumar Rai, Advocate and Shri Devansh Misra,
Advocate appearing on behalf of the petitioner and Shri Manas Bhargava,
Advocate appearing on behalf of respondent no.2-U.P. Lokayukta and
learned Standing Counsel for the State-respondents.

2. Submission advanced on behalf of the petitioner is that the Lokayukta
and Deputy Lokayukta are not justified in entertaining a complaint in
respect of execution of a sale-deed which is also subject matter of
challenge in a Civil Suit being O.S. No.1614 of 2024 filed by the same
complainant with same allegations which have been raised in the
complaint made to the Lokayukta.

3. It is contended that after the Lokayukta had entertained the complaint
and directed for a fact finding enquiry by a three Member Committee and
report has been submitted, he has further desired the petitioner to submit
more documents, it appears, for testing the findings arrived at by the three
Members Committee. It is contended that three Member Committee itself
has returned a finding that the allegations made in the complaint had no
basis. He submits that once the complainant is seeking remedy before the
trial court for getting the sale-deed declared as null and void, no
administrative exercise of power by the Lokayukta can render the sale-
deed void. He further submits that it is a such matter where the Court of
Law would be only competent forum for getting the effective relief as the
complainant wants by way of complaint made before the Deputy
                                                         WRIC No. 37535 of 2026
                                2


Lokayukta.

4. Shri Devansh Mishra, learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the
petitioner in support of the above submission has drawn attention of the
Court to the relevant provisions as contained under Section 8(1)(b) of the
Lokayukta Act, 1975, according to which if a complaint containing the
same grievance as has been raised seeking relief from a Tribunal or the
Court of Law, the Lokayukta jurisdiction stands clearly barred.

5. Per contra, it is submitted by Shri Manas Bhargava, learned Advocate
appearing on behalf of respondent -Lokayukta that the complaint made by
the complainant is not only confined to the validity of the sale-deed but
with regard to the disproportionate assets created by the petitioner abusing
his position in office that he held. He has also drawn the attention to the
proviso of Section 8(1)(b) which permits the Lokayukta / Deputy
Lokayukta to prima facie be satisfied whether the complaint lodged
before the authority under the Act, 1975 would fall within the exception
clause or not.

6. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having perused the
record, we find there not to be only a civil suit filed in respect of the sale
deed, in question, but the complaint encompasses a larger issue of
disproportionate assets acquired by the petitioner by abusing his position
in office. However, a finding is yet to be returned by the Deputy
Lokayukta regarding maintainability of the complaint in the face of the
fact that a civil suit is pending before the trial court, initiated by the same
complainant. Hence, we direct the Deputy Lokayukta to take a final
decision taking recourse to the proviso as contained under Section 8(1) of
the Act, 1975, before proceeding further in the matter of complaint. Let
the petitioner approach the Deputy Lokayukta making an application by
raising such grounds as to the maintainability of the complaint with
jurisdiction, including the issue of limitation, in view of the relevant
provisions as contained under Section 8, and if he does so within two
weeks' time, the Deputy Lokayukta shall proceed to examine the
preliminary objections raised by the petitioner and shall be passing a final
order in the matter within a further period of two months after giving
opportunity of hearing to the respective parties as may be prescribed for
                                                                                           WRIC No. 37535 of 2026
                                                                   3


                                    under the relevant rules. It is only after the decision is taken as directed
                                    herein above by the Deputy Lokayukta and such authority gets convinced
                                    that it has still jurisdiction despite pendency of suit that he will proceed
                                    further in the matter of notice dated 21.07.2026.

                                    7. With the aforesaid observations/directions this writ petition stands
                                    disposed off.



                                                                       (Siddharth Nandan,J.) (Ajit Kumar,J.)
                                    September 18, 2026
                                    S.Prakash




Digitally signed by :-
SHASHI PRAKASH
High Court of Judicature at Allahabad