JUDGMENT 1. This matter is taken up by video conferencing mode. 2. Heard Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Advocate for the Petitioner and Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General assisted by Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned Additional Government Advocate for the State-Opposite Parties. 3. The challenge in the present writ petition is the order dated 11th December, 2020 passed by the Odisha Lokayukta ("Lokayukta') in LY Case No. 1348 of 2020, which reads as under: 'This complaint dated 09.12.2020 is received from Ranjan Kumar Das, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Cell Unit, Bhubaneswar wherein serious allegation of corruption is made against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi, Member of Odisha Legislative Assembly of Gopalpur Constituency. The complaint is based on a secret verification of the Vigilance Cell. It is also supported by number of documents. The complaint prima facie reveals that Dr.Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi by resorting to corrupt practice has amassed assets disproportionate to his known source of income. We therefore by exercising powers conferred under section 20(1) of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 direct the Directorate of Vigilance, Odisha, Cuttack to conduct a preliminary inquiry against Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and submit the report within two months. We also direct the Director of Vigilance to ensure that during the preliminary inquiry provisions of section 20(2) of the same Act are duly complied with. The Office shall immediately supply the relevant record to the Director of Vigilance for information and compliance. List the matter on 12.02.2021 for submission of preliminary inquiry report.' 4. Mr. Pitambar Acharya, learned Senior Advocate appearing for the Petitioner points out that there are two major difficulties as far as the above order is concerned. He refers to Section 20 of the Odisha Lokayukta Act, 2014 ("Act'), which reads as under: '20. (1) The Lokayukta, on receipt of a complaint, if it decides to proceed further, may order (a) preliminary inquiry against any public servant by its Inquiry Wing or any agency to ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter; or (b) investigation by any agency or authority empowered under any law to investigate, where there exists a prima facie case. Provided that any investigation under this clause shall be ordered only if in the opinion of the Lokayukta there is substantial material relating to the existence of a prima facie case or any earlier statutory investigation or enquiry regarding the same complaint reveals that a prima facie case exists. Provided further that before ordering an investigation under this clause, the Lokayukta shall call for the explanation of the public servant and views of the competent authority, so as to determine whether there exists a prima facie case for investigation. Provided also that a decision to order investigation under this clause shall be taken by a bench constituted by the Chairperson under section 16. (2) During the preliminary inquiry referred to in subsection (1), the Inquiry Wing or any agency shall conduct a preliminary inquiry and on the basis of material, information and documents collected, seek the comments on the allegations made in the complaint from the public servant and competent authority and after obtaining the comments of the concerned public servant and competent authority, submit, within sixty days from the date of receipt of the reference, a report to the Lokayukta. (3) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokayukta shall consider every report received under sub-section (2) from the Inquiry Wing or any agency and after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant, decide as to whether there exists a prima facie case, and make recommendations to proceed with one or more of the following actions, namely: (a) investigation by any agency (including any special investigation agency); (b) initiation of the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servant by the competent authority; (c) closure of the proceedings against the public servant and take action to proceed against the complainant under section 46. (4) The promotion and other service benefits of a public servant mentioned in clauses (e) to (h) of subsection (1) of section 14 shall not be affected until the public servant is put under suspension on recommendation of the Lokayukta under section 32 or charge sheet is filed after completion of investigation under clause (a) of sub-section (3) or a charge memo is issued against the said public servant in a disciplinary proceeding initiated on the recommendation of the Lokayukta under clause (b) of sub-section (3). (5) Every preliminary inquiry referred to in subsection (1) shall ordinarily be completed within a period of ninety days and for reasons to be recorded in writing, within a further period of ninety days from the date of receipt of the complaint. (6) In case the Lokayukta decides to proceed to investigate into the complaint, it shall, by order in writing, direct any investigating agency (including any special agency) to carry out the investigation as expeditiously as possible and complete the investigation within a period of six months from the date of its order: Provided that the Lokayukta, for the reasons to be recorded in writing, may extend the said period by a further period not exceeding six months at a time and for the maximum period of two years. (7) Notwithstanding anything contained in section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, any investigating agency (including any special agency) shall, in respect of cases referred to it by the Lokayukta, submit the investigation report to the Lokayukta. (8) A bench consisting of not less than three Members of the Lokayukta shall consider every report received by it under sub-section (7) from any investigating agency (including any special agency) and may, decide as to (a) filing of charge-sheet or closure report before the Special Court against the public servant; (b) initiating the departmental proceedings or any other appropriate action against the concerned public servant by the competent authority. (9) The Lokayukta may, after taking a decision under sub-section (8) on the filing of the charge sheet, direct its Prosecution Wing to initiate prosecution in a Special Court in respect of cases investigated by any investigating agency (including any special agency). (10) The Lokayukta may, during the preliminary inquiry or the investigation, as the case may be, pass appropriate orders for the safe custody of the documents relevant to the preliminary inquiry or, as the case may be, investigation, as it deems fit. (11) The website of the Lokayukta shall, from time to time and in such manner as may be specified by regulations, display to the public, the status of number of complaints pending before it or disposed of by it. (12) The Lokayukta may retain the original records and evidences, which are likely to be required in the process of preliminary inquiry or investigation or conduct of a case by it or by the Special Court. (12) The Lokayukta may retain the original records and evidences, which are likely to be required in the process of preliminary inquiry or investigation or conduct of a case by it or by the Special Court. (13) Save as otherwise provided, the manner and procedure of conducting a preliminary inquiry or investigation (including such material and documents to be made available to the public servant) under this Act, shall be such as may be specified by regulations.' 5. Mr. Acharya submits that the scheme of Section 20 of the Act envisages that the Lokayukta first, on the receipt of a complaint, has the discretion to decide whether it should order a Preliminary Inquiry ("PE') against any public servant. Secondly, if it decides to so order, it has to further take a call whether that PE either should be conducted by its "Inquiry Wing' or by any other agency. Thirdly, the purpose of the PE in terms of Section 20(1)(a) is to "ascertain whether there exists a prima facie case for proceeding in the matter'. 6. Mr. Acharya points out that the two difficulties in the impugned order are that first, having decided to entertain the complaint received from the Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Vigilance Cell Unit, Bhubaneswar alleging that the Petitioner had resorted to the corrupt practice of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, the PE has been ordered to be conducted by the Director of Vigilance. In this sense, therefore, the complainant and the inquiring authority are one and the same. The second difficulty, he points out, is that in the second paragraph of the impugned order, the Lokayukta has expressed its prima facie view about what the complaint reveals. Mr. Acharya, submits out that such prima facie view could not have been arrived at by the Lokayukta at this stage. The question of arriving at such a view would arise, in terms of Section 20(2) read with Section 20 (3) of the Act, after a report has been submitted on the PE and secondly after the entire Bench of the Lokayukta has considered the said report after giving an opportunity of being heard to the public servant. In other words without crossing the stage of Section 20( 2) of the Act, the Lokayukta, according to Mr. Acharya, could not have expressed any such prima facie view on what the complaint is about. 7. In other words without crossing the stage of Section 20( 2) of the Act, the Lokayukta, according to Mr. Acharya, could not have expressed any such prima facie view on what the complaint is about. 7. This Court has heard the submissions of Mr. A.K. Parija, learned Advocate General and Mr. M.S. Sahoo, learned AGA. While they point out that under Section 28 of the Act, the Lokayukta has the power to utilize the services of any other officer or organization or investigation agency of the Government for conducting the PE, it is fairly submitted that in the present case with the complainant being the Vigilance Cell Unit itself, it is justified on the part of the Petitioner to apprehend that the PE conducted by the Directorate of Vigilance cannot be expected to be fair. 8. Indeed the first paragraph of the impugned order of the Lokayukta pertinently points out the fact that "the complaint is based on a secret verification of the Vigilance Cell'. It is reasonable to expect that the Vigilance Cell would have made the complaint against the Petitioner before the Lokayukta with the approval or at least the knowledge of the Director of Vigilance. It is, therefore, entirely possible that the spirit of Section 20 (1) (a) of ensuring an objective PE would be defeated if it is ordered to be conducted, in the present case, by the Director of Vigilance. This is particularly, to repeat, since the complainant is the Vigilance Cell Unit itself. Further, it is not as if the Lokayukta did not have a choice of agencies to whom the PE should be entrusted. As is evident from a plain reading of Section 20 (1) the first choice is the Inquiry Wing of the Lokayukta itself. 9. Mr. Acharya says that there is in fact an Inquiry Wing of Lokayukta in position. 10. Consequently, this Court sets aside the direction issued in the impugned order by the Lokayukta to the Director of Vigilance to conduct the PE against the Petitioner. Instead, it is directed that the PE against the Petitioner will be conducted by the Inquiry Wing of the Lokayukta. 11. The other direction in the impugned order that such PE shall be strictly in conformity with the requirement of Section 20 (2) of the Act is left undisturbed. Instead, it is directed that the PE against the Petitioner will be conducted by the Inquiry Wing of the Lokayukta. 11. The other direction in the impugned order that such PE shall be strictly in conformity with the requirement of Section 20 (2) of the Act is left undisturbed. Needless to say, the Lokayukta will further proceed in the matter, after it receives the report of PE from its Inquiry Wing, strictly in accordance with Section 20 (3) of the Act. 12. As regards the second paragraph of the impugned order, there was no serious dispute even by Mr. Parija that such a prima facie view could not have been expressed by the Lokayukta at this stage i.e. even before a report of PE is submitted to it. Consequently, this Court has no hesitation in setting aside the entire paragraph 2 of the impugned order, which expresses the prima facie view of the Lokayukta. It is specifically directed that the Inquiry Wing of the Lokayukta shall proceed to hold the PE uninfluenced in any manner by the above observation made by the Lokayukta in paragraph 2 of the impugned order. 13. At the same time, we hasten to add that this order of ours should not be construed as expression of any view on the merits of the complaint against the Petitioner one way or the other. 14. The writ petition is disposed of in the above terms. 15. As the restrictions due to the COVID-19 situation are continuing, learned counsel for the parties may utilize a soft copy of this order available in the High Court's website or print out thereof at par with certified copy in the manner prescribed, vide Court's Notice No.4587, dated 25th March, 2020.