The court gave the directive in a plea moved by three officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the Lokpal's order directing a CBI investigation against them on a complaint alleging illegal and unauthorised constructions in South Delhi. The Delhi High Court Monday asked the Lokpal of India to place on record Central Vigilance Commission’s report in a plea moved by three officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi against the anti-corruption authority’s order directing a CBI investigation against them on a complaint alleging illegal and unauthorised constructions in South Delhi. A single judge bench of Justice Prathiba Singh said, “The record reveals that the Lokpal had called for a status report from South Delhi Municipal Corporation through the Central Vigilance Commission vide its order dated April 25, 2022. The said report is stated to be received by Lokpal. However, a copy of the same has not been made available to the petitioners (MCD officials) and it does not form part of the record. Let the file of the Lokpal consisting of the CVC report be placed before the court on the next date of hearing for consideration of interim relief, which was stated to have been forwarded by CVC by its letter dated 27-5-2022,” The matter is next listed on January 17. The HC further issued notice to the CBI to seek instructions on “whether any investigation has commenced pursuant to orders passed by the Lokpal”. During the course of the hearing, Justice Singh observed that there was a three-stage process in the act. “There is a preliminary inquiry, investigation, then their prosecution. In your case the stage is the middle stage. Now the question is whether this consent is required for the middle stage or not”. Senior advocate Sandeep Sethi appearing for the officials submitted that Section 20 of Lokpal Act is in two parts. “Investigation can proceed even on receipt of the complaint if Lokpal finds a prima facie case of corruption against the offenders. If no prima facie case is found in the complaint stage and an inquiry is undertaken and on receipt of a report of the inquiry then Lokpal will return a prima facie finding of culpability and send the matter for investigation. Before the investigation takes place there has to be a prima facie finding of culpability,” he said. Sethi said that according to Lokpal’s order there was no finding that a prima facie case is made out and therefore now it must proceed with an investigation. Justice Singh said, “of course, they have given their reasons, the word prima facie is not used. They have given a finding,” to which Sethi countered by submitting that Lokpal has not given a finding on culpability against any public servant. After hearing the parties, Justice Singh remarked with respect to CVC’s report that whatever report was called for by the Lokpal it can’t be expanded to the “entire south zone, all of South Delhi, and all engineers in South Delhi and the entire corporation”. “Whatever report they have called for would be only qua three for green park, it can’t be anything more. That expansion seems to be a little bit of an overreach,” Justice Singh told counsel appearing for Lokpal. She further observed, “Even insofar as these people (officers) are concerned I want to see the CVC report if the investigation should go further or not. Let them bring the CVC”. The Delhi High Court last week asked the Lokpal of India to inform the court whether the anti-corruption body can issue an inquiry against officials of a corporation – which is partly financed by a state government, without first seeking consent from the said state government. The legal issue arose while the court was hearing a plea moved by certain officials of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi who challenged an order of the Lokpal directing a CBI investigation against them based on a complaint by Vikram Singh Saini – a former general secretary of Samajwadi Yuvjan Sabha alleging illegal and unauthorised constructions in South Delhi. The plea alleged that the Lokpal’s order is without jurisdiction and transgresses the scope and authority vested with it due to the absence of any incriminating document or inquiry which can show a “prima facie case of corruption” alleged against the officials. The plea sought to quash the Lokpal’s order and urged for a stay of the order against the officials in the interim.