ORDER : Challenging Government order no.C.A.SUE/103/KEV/2016, Bangalore, dated 22.03.2018 passed by respondent no.1 as per Annexure-A, this petition is filed. 2. Sri V.S. Arbatti, learned counsel for petitioner- Karnataka Lokayukta, submitted that on a complaint lodged by one Mr.Srinivas son of Sri. Venkataramanappa, Boodigere village, Devanahalli Taluk, against respondent no.2 about dereliction of duty, an investigation under Section 9 of Karnataka Lokayukta Act (for short 'K.L.Act') was conducted. On conclusion of enquiry and finding sufficient material against respondent no.2, report dated 14.06.2016 under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act was forwarded to respondent no.1, recommending departmental enquiry and for its entrustment to Lokayukta. It was submitted that said report accompanied with entire material gathered during enquiry. 3. On receipt of report under Section 12(3) of K.L.Act, though, respondent no.1 was required to examine and intimate action taken or proposed to be taken under Section 12(4) of the Act, respondent no.1 passed impugned order under Rule 14-A of Karnataka Civil Services (Classifications Control and Appeal) Rules, 1957, rejecting recommendation. 4. It was submitted that while considering report submitted under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act, respondent no.1 would not be exercising appellate jurisdiction. In instant case, respondent no.1 not only issued notice to respondent no.2, but also based it's order on approval granted by concerned Minister, which would be illegal. It was submitted that respondent no.1 was enjoined to consider only report and material forwarded along with it and thereafter decide whether to accept report/recommendations or otherwise, and to intimate same to Lokayukta. It would not be appropriate for respondent no.1 to virtually sit in appeal over recommendation, as would appear wherein respondent no.1 issued notice to respondent no.2, afforded opportunity and thereafter decided not to proceed with holding departmental enquiry as proposed. Therefore, sought for quashing of impugned order etc. 5. In support of his submission, learned counsel relied upon decision of this Court in Writ Petition no.33097/2017, disposed of on 21.12.2018 and also decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Office of the Odisha Lokayukta Vs. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 175. 6. On other hand, Sri. Prasanna B.R., learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to support impugned order. Dr. Pradeep Kumar Panigrahi and Ors., 2023 SCC OnLine SC 175. 6. On other hand, Sri. Prasanna B.R., learned counsel for respondent no.2 sought to support impugned order. It was firstly submitted that petitioner lacked locus-standi to question impugned order as Section 12 (5) of the Act only permitted Lokayukta to submit a special report to Governor, in case of dissatisfaction with action taken by Government and could not challenge order as an aggrieved party. 7. Even on merits, it was submitted that issuance of notice was in compliance of principles of natural justice and therefore, there were no serious infirmities in impugned order. In support of his submission, learned counsel sought to rely upon decision of this Court in case of M/s Kumaraswamy Mineral Exports Pvt. Ltd., Vs. State of Karnataka by Addl. Chief Secretary, Department of Commerce & Industries and Ors., ILR 2015 Kar. 5591 and judgment in W.P.No.25078-18/2016 disposed of on 15.07.2016. 8. Learned HCGP submitted that while passing impugned order, respondent no.1 had examined material based on which report was submitted and on consideration, order was passed. Therefore, there was no infirmity in same. 9. Heard learned counsel and perused record. 10. There is no dispute about complaint having been filed against respondent no.2. Further it is also not in dispute about enquiry being held under Section 9 of K.L. Act by affording opportunity to respondent no.2 and after it's conclusion, petitioner submitted report to respondent no.1 under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act and thereafter respondent no.1 passed impugned order. 11. While it is contended by petitioner that instead of confining to report and material accompanying it, respondent no.1 exceeded jurisdiction by issuing notice to respondent no.2 and after considering material submitted by respondent no.2, passed orders, as if in appeal; whereas respondents contend that petitioner lacked locus - standi to question decision taken by government except submitting report to Governor under Section 12(5) of K.L.Act. 12. Before proceeding to examining rival contentions, it would be relevant to note that complaint against respondent no.2 was not a 'grievance', but an 'allegation' defined under Section 2(2) of K.L.Act. As per Annexure-B - report submitted was on prima facie finding material in support of allegation against respondent no.2 and hence, recourse to Section 12(3) of K.L.Act. 13. Section 12 of K.L.Act reads as follows: "Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- 1. As per Annexure-B - report submitted was on prima facie finding material in support of allegation against respondent no.2 and hence, recourse to Section 12(3) of K.L.Act. 13. Section 12 of K.L.Act reads as follows: "Reports of Lokayukta, etc.- 1. If, after investigation of any action involving a grievance has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such action has resulted in injustice or undue hardship to the complainant or to any other person, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta shall, by a report in writing, recommend to the competent authority concerned that such injustice or hardship shall be remedied or redressed in such manner and within such time as may be specified in the report. 2. The competent authority to whom a report is sent under sub-section(1) shall, within one month of the expiry of the period specified in the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to or the Lokayukta the Upalokayukta the action taken on the report. 3. If, after investigation of any action involving an allegation has been made, the Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta is satisfied that such allegation is substantiated either wholly or partly, he shall by report in writing communicate his findings and recommendations along with the relevant documents, materials and other evidence to the competent authority. 4. The Competent authority shall examine the report forwarded to it under sub-section (3) and within three months of the date of receipt of the report, intimate or cause to be intimated to the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta the action taken or proposed to be taken on the basis of the report. 5. If the Lokayukta or the Upalokayukta is satisfied with the action taken or proposed to be taken on his recommendations or findings referred to in sub-sections (1) and (3), he shall close the case under information to the complainant, the public servant and the competent authority concerned; but where he is not so 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. 6. The Lokayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions and that of the Upalokayukta under this Act to the Governor. 7. 6. The Lokayukta shall present annually a consolidated report on the performance of his functions and that of the Upalokayukta under this Act to the Governor. 7. On receipt of the special report under sub- section (5), or the annual report under sub- section (6), the Governor shall cause a copy thereof together with an explanatory memorandum to be laid before each House of the State Legislature. 8. The Lokayukta or an Upalokayukta may at his discretion make available, from time to time, the substances of cases closed or otherwise disposed of by him which may appear to him to be of general, public, academic or professional interest in such manner and to such persons as he may deem appropriate. 14. Careful perusal of Section 12(3), (4) and (5) of K.L. Act, would reveal that after submission of report, competent authority was to examine it within three months and intimate to Lokayukta about action taken or proposed to be taken. No procedure for competent authority to issue notice to respondent no.2 at time of consideration, is contemplated. In impugned order, though, there is consideration of report, it suffers from vice of taking irrelevant considerations, insofar as referring to reply of respondent no.2 and approval of Minister. Therefore, same would be in violation of wednesbury principles, which are held to be inbuilt into Art.14 of Constitution of India [Om Kumar Vs. Union of India, [ AIR 2000 SC 3689 ]]. On said ground alone, impugned order would require interference. 15. Insofar as issue of locus-standi of petitioner, it is seen that until Lokayukta takes action in terms of Section 12(5) of K.L. Act, case would be pending before it. This would justify invocation of writ jurisdiction by Lokayukta, especially, as complaint against respondent no.2 is an allegation affecting public at large. 16. In fact, until action is taken under Section 12(5) of K.L. Act either to close case or submit report to Governor, neither complainant nor delinquent government employee would be aggrieved and would lack locus-standi to question decision of government. Therefore, respondent no.2 would not be required to be notified or heard at time of respondent no.1 taking decision on report submitted under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act. 17. Therefore, respondent no.2 would not be required to be notified or heard at time of respondent no.1 taking decision on report submitted under Section 12(3) of K.L. Act. 17. Division Bench of this Court in W.P.no.33097/2017, disposed of on 21.12.2018 has observed that when illegality is brought to notice of Court, it was duty bound to rectify such illegalities and to ensure that justice is done to parties and miscarriage of justice is avoided. In view of said observation, it is held that Lokayukta would be entitled to question order, when it is passed without application of mind. 18. It is further seen that respondent no.2 had not questioned initiation of enquiry by Lokayukta. Therefore, his contentions regarding maintainability of complaint etc., cannot be considered at this stage. Hence, attempt by respondent no.2 to question complaint in writ petition filed by Lokayukta would be misconceived. 19. Hence, I pass following: ORDER i. Writ petition is allowed. ii. Impugned order no.C.A.SUE/103/KEV/ 2016, dated 22.03.2018 passed by respondent no.1 is quashed. iii. Respondent no.1 is directed to reconsider action to be taken on Annexure-B - report, in accordance with law, taking note of observations made hereinabove and pass appropriate orders thereon within one month and intimate petitioner about same forthwith.