WEDNESDAY, MAY 08, 2024
He has probably voiced aloud what many may be thinking. This was not a sentence that was made extempore, but one that was made in writing, in a special report to the Governor of the State. The fact that such a report had to be made is another telling comment on the manner in which the government works in the State. The Lokayukta had presented his report on the alleged illegal renewal of 88 mining leases, recommending a FIR against three persons – former Chief Minister Laxmikant Parsekar, former Mines Secretary Pawan Kumar Sain and former Mines Director Prasanna Acharya. The government had rejected the report.
The Lokayukta P K Misra, approached the Governor on the matter, with a letter where he stated that if any of the accused in the case can explain as how 31 renewals were done on January 12, without any violations, then the Institution is ready to “recall the report suo motu” and “recommend for appropriate honour on the three, on the coming Independence Day, for the remarkable efficiency”. The Lokayukta didn’t stop there but went further to state that, ‘if the above acts were not abuse of position, then God only knows the meaning of such expression. And God alone can Save the State’.
Soon after the report had been made to the government, Chief Minister Dr Pramod Sawant had said that the report of the Lokayukta was recommendatory and not binding upon the government. Clearly, and this is not a new phenomenon, politicians are known to protect each other whenever they are cornered. This is also what the Lokayukta refers to in his special report, and states: ‘…Putra Moha” (love for the son) seems to have been substituted by “Party Moha” (love for the party) or other kinds of “Moha” (love) in the system of public administration and shouting from the roof tops regarding eradication of corruption, while paying only lip service, when the question of actual eradications crops up’.
The institution of the Lokayuta has been created forth to fight corruption, but if the government rejects the reports of the ombudsman, then what purpose does it serve to have such an office in the State? However, a close look at the Lokayukta Act reveals that a report need not be merely recommendatory. The Act states that on receipt of a Lokayukta’s report the competent authority shall examine the report and within three months of receiving the report, ‘intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or Upa-Lokayukta, as the case may be, the action taken or proposed to be taken, on the basis of the report’. Further, if the Lokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendation ‘he shall close the case under information to the complainant, if any, the public functionary and the competent authority concerned, but where he is not satisfied and if he considers that the case so deserves, he may make a special report upon the case to the Governor and also inform the competent authority concerned and the complainant, if any’. This is exactly what the Lokayukta has done.
The timing of the special report could not have been more embarassing to the government as the letter from the Lokayukta to the Governor came on the eve of Statehood Day. The State has to seriously consider the report of the Lokayukta. Rejecting the report only conveys the message that the government is not serious in fighting corruption. Now that the Lokayukta has gone to the Governor with a special report, will the government reconsider and act in this case?
