R. A. MEHTA, J. ( 1 ) THE petitioners in both these petitions are challenging the witness summons issued to each of them by the Lokayukta Gujarat State in suo motu Inquiry No. 4 of 1990 (Special Civil Application No. 8977 of 1992) and suo motu Inquiry No. 1 of 1991 (Special Civil Application No. 134 of 1993 ). It is contended that under section 22 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act 1986 the Lokayukta has delegated the powers by his order dated August 22 1992 of recording evidence under section 11 (1) and (2) to Shri B. R. Acharya Registrar Lokayukta office. ( 2 ) THE learned Counsels appearing for both the petitioners have raised the following contentions. (1): That section 22 is ultra vires and violative of Articles 14 19 and 21 of the Constitution of India because it confers unreasonable and arbitrary powers without any guidelines and all the powers of the Lokayukta under the Act (except making the report under sections 12 and 13) can be delegated to any employee and even to a Class IV servant and therefore this section is bad. (2): In the alternative it is submitted that the order delegation is improper (3): The witness summons deserves to be quashed on the ground that it is bad; and (4): That the cross examination of the witnesses in suo motu inquiry by the Counsel of the Commission is not permissible in Law. ( 3 ) WE have heard the learned advocates at length. Section 22 of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act 1986 reads as follows:"the Lokayukta may by a general or a special order in writing direct that any powers conferred or duties imposed on him by or under this Act (except the power to make reports to the Governor under sections 12 and 13) may also be exercised or discharged by such of the officers employees or agencies referred to in section 15 as may be specified in the order". It is submitted that a bare and literal reading of the section shows that Lokayukta may delegate any of his powers under the Act (except under sections 12 and 13) to any officer employee or agency referred to in section 15. It is submitted that a bare and literal reading of the section shows that Lokayukta may delegate any of his powers under the Act (except under sections 12 and 13) to any officer employee or agency referred to in section 15. It is submitted that Lokayukta is appointed under section 3 of the Act by the Governor after consultation with the Chief Justice of the High Court and also after consultation with the Leader of Opposition and he should be such a person who is or has been a Judge of the High court. It is therefore submitted that having regard to the high stature qualification experience and eminent suitability he is appointed as a Lokayukta for investigating into allegations against public functionaries and it is because of his high stature that the powers have been conferred on him and the powers are found in various provisions of the Act (even apart from sections 12 and 13) which are of sensitive and important nature and such powers cannot be delegated and that too without any guidance to any employee. Our attention has been drawn to the provisions of section 7 (3) which provides that Lokayukta shall before proceeding to investigate any action make such preliminary inquiry as he deems fit for ascertaining whether there exists reasonable ground for conducting the investigation and if he finds that there exists no such ground he shall record a finding to that effect and there upon the matter shall be closed. Thus the power of summary rejection of the complaint has been conferred under section 7 (3) of the Act and this is important power and under section 22 this power can be delegated and that too without any guidelines as to whom much powers can be delegated. Similarly the provisions of section 8 and (4) have also been referred to. Section 8 provides for the matters which shall not be investigated by the Lokayukta and if any question arises whether such matter is excluded or not excluded decision on such questions can be left to the delegate. Similarly the provisions of section 8 and (4) have also been referred to. Section 8 provides for the matters which shall not be investigated by the Lokayukta and if any question arises whether such matter is excluded or not excluded decision on such questions can be left to the delegate. Section 10 (1) provides that Where the Lokayukta decides to conduct any investigation under the Act he shall forward a copy of the complaint or a statement setting out the grounds if he proposes to conduct investigation on his own motion and the Lokayukta shall afford to the public functionary concerned an opportunity to offer his comments on such complaint or statement and make orders asto the safe custody of the document. Section 10 (2) provides that every such investigation shall be conducted in private. Section 10 (4) provides that the Lokayukta in his discretion may refuse to investigate or cease to investigate any complaint if in his opinion the complaint is frivolous or vexatious or is not made in good faith- or there are no sufficient grounds for investigating or as the case may be for continuing the investigation or other remedies are available to the complainant. It is submitted that under section 22 even this discretion and power of the Lokayukta can be delegated. ( 4 ) SECTION 11 is regarding evidence and it reads as under:"11 Subject to the provisions of this section for the purpose of investigation (including the preliminary inquiry before such investigation) under this Act the Lokayukta may require any public servant or any other person who in his opinion is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the investigation to furnish any such information or produce any such document. (2): For the purpose of any such investigation (including the preliminary inquiry) the Lokayukta shall have all the powers of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure 1908 in respect of the following matters namely: (a) summoning and enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath; (b) requiring the discovery and production of any document; (c) receiving evidence on affidavit; (d) requisitioning any public record or copy thereof from any court or office; (e) such other matters as may be prescribed. (3): The Lokayukta shall have power to require any person subject the provisions of sub section (8) to furnish information on such points or matters as in the opinion of the Lokayukta may be useful for or relevant to the subject matter of the inquiry and any person so required shall be deemed to be legally bound to furnish such information within the meaning of section 176 and section 177 of the Indian Penal Code. (4) The Lokayukta or any Gazetted Officer specially authorised in this behalf by the Lokayukta may enter any building or place where he has reason to believe that any books of account or other documents relating to the subject matter of the inquiry may be found any may seize any such books of account or documents or take extracts or copies therefrom subject to the provisions of section 100 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 in so far as they may be applicable. (5): The Lokayukta shall be deemed to be a Civil Court and when any offence as is described in section 175 section 178 and 179 or section 180 of the Indian Penal Code is committed in the view or presence of the Lokayukta the Lokayukta may after recording the facts constituting the offence and the statement of the accused as provided for in the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 forward the case to a Magistrate having jurisdiction to try the same and the Magistrate to whom any such case is forwarded shall proceed to hear the complaint against the accused as if the case had been forwarded to him under section 346 of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (6) Any proceeding before the Lokayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of section 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. (7) Subject to the provisions of sub section (8) no obligation to maintain secrecy or other restriction upon the disclosure of information obtained by or furnished to the State Government or any public servant whether imposed by any enactment or by any rule of law shall apply to the disclosure of information for the purpose of any investigation under this Act and the State Government or any public servant shall not be entitled in relation to any such investigation to any such privilege in respect of the production of documents or the giving of evidence as is allowed by any enactment or by any rule of law in legal proceedings. (8) No person shall be required or authorised by virtue of this Act to furnish any such information or answer any such question or produce so much of an document. a) As might prejudice the security or defence or international relations of India (including Indias relations with the Government of any other country or with any international organisation) or the investigation or detection of crime; or b) As might involve the disclosure of proceedings other than the decision of the Cabinet or Council of Ministers of the State Government or any committee thereof if any; and for the purpose of this sub section a certificate issued by the Chief Secretary certifying that any information answer or portion of a document is of the nature specified in clause (a) or clause (b) shall be binding and conclusive. These provisions enable the Lokayukta to require any public servant or any other person to furnish information and produce documents relevant for the investigation. Section 11 (2) provides that for the purpose of such investigation Lokayukta has all the power of a civil court while trying a suit under the Code of Civil Procedure in respect of the matters specified in clauses (a) to (f ). Section 11 (6) provides that any proceeding before the Lokayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 11 (6) provides that any proceeding before the Lokayukta shall be deemed to be a judicial proceeding within the meaning of Sections 193 and 228 of the Indian Penal Code. ( 5 ) IT is accordingly submitted that the Act confers wide and varied powers of essential nature under these different provisions of the Act and section 22 of the Act enables the Lokayukta to delegate all these powers to anyone without any guidance and it does not provide as to which power can be delegated to what kind of person and it gives absolutely arbitrary power to the Lokayukta and therefore this section is violative of Article 14 of the Constitution of India. ( 6 ) THE preamble of the Act shows that it has been enacted to make provisions for the appointment of Lokayukta for investigation of allegations against public function-aries in the State of Gujarat and also for safeguarding the dignity and prestige of public function aries against the false and frivolous complaints and for matters connected therewith. It is a matter of public importance that the allegations of corruption are investigated so that if allegations are established in an inquiry steps can be taken towards purifying the public life and if allegations are not established the prestige and dignity of the public functionary is safeguarded and cleared. It is with this high idea that the Act has been enacted and it provides for not only the appointment of Lokayukta but also takes care to see that the person appointed as a Lokayukta is of high competence and commanding confidence of the people and public institution. He has to be a Sitting Judge or a Retired Judge of a High Court. He is appointed after consultation not only with the Chief Justice of the High Court but also after consultation with the Leader of Opposition. When such a person has been entrusted the task of making inquiry into the allegations against the public functionaries he has to be equipped and assisted so that he can function effectively. ( 7 ) SECTION 15 of the Act provides for staff of Lokayukta. The staff of Lokayukta is appointed by Lokayukta or by his authorised officer who is subordinate to him whose salaries allowances and other conditions of service are prescribed after consultation with the Lokayukta. ( 7 ) SECTION 15 of the Act provides for staff of Lokayukta. The staff of Lokayukta is appointed by Lokayukta or by his authorised officer who is subordinate to him whose salaries allowances and other conditions of service are prescribed after consultation with the Lokayukta. The Lokayukta is also empowered for the purpose of conducting investigation to utilise the services of any officer or any investigating agency of the State Government or of the Central Government or any other agency and can delegate power to such officer employee or agency referred to in section 15 as may be specified in the order of the Lokayukta. In view of the special nature of investigation of allegations against public functionaries the Lokayukta may for various reasons have to attend to more important aspects and may require assistance of other persons to do some of the things which he is required to do and Lokayukta may delegate any of the powers (except sections 12 and 14) to any-person of his choice. It is true that the literal reading of the section may indicate that the Lokayukta may direct any powers to be exercised by any officer employee or agency but when that power of choice has been left to Lokayukta who has been appointed under section 3 of the Act having regard to his high stature and suitability there is no reason whatsoever to put any guidelines. The guidelines are laid down for the selection and appointment of such a person of high stature and judicial experience and otherwise also commanding respect and confidence of all institutions. He is the best person to judge the situation and guide his discretion. In fact he would be better placed to exercise his discretion on his own guidance having regard to the circumstances that may arise from time to time rather than Legislature placing any guidelines in general. ( 8 ) THE very fact that the discretion has been conferred on such a high authority shows that the Legislature has trusted the person to delegate appropriate powers to appropriate persons depending on the circumstances existing and the nature of the power to be delegated and the person to whom it is to be delegated. The Legislature had entrusted the powers of investigation to the Lokayukta and has also entrusted and trusted the said high judicial functionary to delegate powers and duties. The Legislature had entrusted the powers of investigation to the Lokayukta and has also entrusted and trusted the said high judicial functionary to delegate powers and duties. Lokayukta would also be guided by his judicial conscience experience and standing whenever any power is to be given to any person and the suitability of the person to exercise such power. By such delegation the Lokayukta does not abdicate his essential functions but only authorised a suitable person to exercise some of the powers. The essence of such investigation is expeditious completion of the investigation which has a healthy effect on the purity in public life as well as in clearing the names and reputation of public functionaries. If for any reason the investigation gets delayed because the Lokayukta is unable to attend to all aspects it may be necessary that some of the powers may have to be delegated to suitable person and there cannot be more appropriate person to exercise this discretion and power of delegation than the Lokayukta himself. The Lokayukta by delegation of power does not abdicate his functions and he can withdraw the delegation at any time and even after delegation of any particular power in important matters ultimately he will have to arrive at his own conclusion and make recommendation on his own under section 13 of the Act. It cannot be said that section 22 is arbitrary having regard to the fact that the power of delegation has been entrusted to the high judicial functionary who can be fully trusted to exercise the power reasonably judiciously and without any arbitrariness and therefore there is no need to put any guidelines. Therefore this provision cannot be said to be violative of Articles 14 19 an 21 of the Constitution of India. ( 9 ) IT was then submitted that the order of delegation is improper. Order of delegation delegates only the powers under section 11 (1) and (2) of the Act on the Registrar of the Lokayukta. It is submitted by the learned Counsels for the petitioners that the qualifications of the Registrar are not prescribed either by the Act or by the Rules and any person can be appointed as Registrar and therefore this delegation is not a proper delegation. The delegation order is by the name of Shri B. R. Acharya Registrar of the Office of Lokayukta. The delegation order is by the name of Shri B. R. Acharya Registrar of the Office of Lokayukta. He is a retired City Civil Judge belonging to the cadre of a District Judge as defined in Article 236 of the Constitution of India. He has a judicial experience of original and appellate side for decades. When the Lokayukta has delegated the power of recording evidence under section 11 (1) and (2) of the Act such an officer it cannot be said that the power has been improperly or unreasonably exercised in this case and the order can not be assailed on that ground. The recording of evidence through a Commissioner is a well known concept and it is not such an essential function which requires to be performed by the Lokayukta himself in all cases. Therefore his order cannot be said to be in any way illegal or improper. ( 10 ) IT is submitted that the witness summons in Special Civil Application No. 8977 of 1992 requires the petitioner witness to appear and bring with him the file of Ajaydeep Cooperative Housing Society. This cannot be said to be vague and on such ground High Court cannot interfere with the functioning of the Lokayukta. If the petitioner finds any difficulty in complaince it is open to him to apply to the Lokayukta and get further particulars. However that can be no reason for quashing a witness summons. For such purposes the writ jurisdiction is thoroughly inappropriate. The High Court would not be justified in interfering with the proceedings by the Lokayukta on such issues. It must be appreciated by the Court that the institution of Lokayukta has been evolved in public interest and it is absolutely necessary that such proceedings shall be held expeditiously and completed expeditiously and at such an interlocutary stage the proceedings cannot be interfactual by this Court. ( 11 ) THE learned counsel for the petitioners also submitted that the witness may be cross examined by the Counsel of the Commission and that is not permissible under any provision of the Gujarat Lokayukta Act or Evidence Act or any other provision and therefore the Lokayukta and his delegate must be prevented from crossing examining the petitioner witness. This argument has no merit. First of all there is no such prohibition as is sought to be contended by the petitioners. This argument has no merit. First of all there is no such prohibition as is sought to be contended by the petitioners. The nature of investigation before the Lokayukta is not ordinary proceeding in a Court where there are adversary parties. It is an inquiry or investigation into a matter of public importance and if the facts are not thoroughly investigated and the evidence is not thoroughly tested there would be miscarriage of justice. Therefore if any witness is subjected to cross examination in any manner it cannot be objected to. There is no law which prohibits such examination. Under Section 11 the Lokayukta has authority to examine a witness on oath. This examination would be in the nature of putting questions. These questions when they are put by or on behalf of the Lokayukta need not be in the nature of examination in chief or cross examination or re examination. The authority has to examine the witness on oath and that would necessarily be in the nature of putting questions by or on behalf of the Lokayukta. ( 12 ) A reference was made to sections 137 and 138 of the Evidence Act regarding examination in chief by a party and cross examination by the adverse party and re examination by the first party and it was submitted that the Lokayukta cannot cross examine the witness. Section 165 of the Evidence Act gives widest possible discretion to the Judge to put any question. Section 165 of the Evidence Act gives widest possible discretion to the Judge to put any question. That section reads as follows:"165 Judges power to put questions or order production: the judge may in order to discover or to obtain proper proof of relevant facts ask any question he pleases in any form at any time of any witness or of the parties about any fact relevant or irrelevant; and may order the production of any document or thing; and neither the parties nor their agents shall be entitled to make any objection to any such question or order nor without the leave of the Court to cross examine any witness upon any answer given in reply to any such question: provided that the judgment must be based upon facts declared by this Act to be relevant and duly proved: provided also that this section shall not authorise any Judge to compel any witness to answer any question or to produce any document which such witness would be entitled to refuse to answer or produce under Sec. 121 to 131 both inclusive if the question were asked or the document were called for by the adverse party; nor shall the Judge ask any question which it would be improper for any other person to ask under Sec. 148 or Sec. 149 nor shall he dispense with primary evidence of any document except in the cases hereinbefore excepted". IT is submitted that under this section only the Judge is empowered to put questions and a reference was also made to the judgment of this Court in the case of Noormohmed @ Nooka Ayub vs. State of Gujarat XI GLR 846. It is observed therein that under the Evidence Act it is always open to the Presiding Judge to put such questions as he thinks proper but at the same time propriety and judicial aloofness demand that ordinarily only at the end of the examination the Judge should put appropriate questions without giving any appearance that the Judge was taking the examination of the witness in his own hand. This would apply in a case of adversary proceeding but where the investigation is made under the Lokayukta Act and more particularly in a suo motu inquiry by the Presiding Officer i. e. Lokayukta the same purpose is achieved by not taking the examination or cross examination in his own hand but by appointing a Counsel so that the Lokayukta can take detached view and keep himself aloof and at the same time achieve an appropriate and balanced result at the end of the investigation". ( 13 ) IT was also submitted that there is no power in the Commission to appoint an advocate of the Commission and reliance was placed on the provisions which exclude the appearance of a lawyer but in the present case the relevant provision is section 15 (3) (iii) which provides that the Lokayukta may for the purpose of conducting the investigation under this Act utilise the services of any other person or agency. Therefore the services of such person or agency are expressly authorised by section 15 and therefore that also cannot be objected to. Once that agency is properly authorised it can legitimately conduct the investigation and put questions in the nature of examination in chief cross examination or re-examination with a view to find out the truth. ( 14 ) AS far as the challenge to the Gujarat Lokayukta Act on the ground of legislative competence is concerned the question is already concluded by the Division Bench judgment in the case of Rajendra Manubhai Patel vs. State of Gujarat 33 G1. R. 223. Therefore no argument is advanced though the point is raised. ( 15 ) THESE were the only contentions raised. All of them fail. Hence both these petitions are dismissed. Interim relief vacated. ( 16 ) MR. S. B. Vakil learned counsel submitted that he has not been fully heared in the matter and states that while his arguments were not complete and while he was in the midst of the arguments the Court had called upon the learned Counsel for the other petitioner to argue the matter and his arguments were not completed. We had heared Mr. We had heared Mr. Vakil at length and on all the three points raised by him we had heard him and we carried an impression that his arguments were over and therefore we had called upon the learned Counsel for the other petitioner to argue the matter. ( 17 ) EVEN at this stage we had offered Mr. Vakil further hearing. However he does not want to avail of that opportunity stating that the decision is already rendered. It was also pointed out to him that after a decision even review application is heard by the same Bench but he has chosen not to argue. ( 18 ) THE learned Counsels for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be granted stay to enable them to approach the Supreme Court. Having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case we are not inclined to grant any stay. Petitions Dismissed. .