Alleged Construction In Buffer Zone By Randeep Hooda: Madhya Pradesh HC Directs SDO To Supply Actor With Enquiry Report, Conduct Spot Inspection

The single-judge bench of Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia pointed out that a writ petition against a show-cause notice alone is not maintainable by drawing the parties' attention to Union of India & Anr v. Kunisetty Satyanarayana, (2006) 12 SCC 28. However, the court has directed Hooda to make an application before the SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat, within 15 days to obtain the enquiry report behind the show cause notice and to carry out spot inspection expeditiously.

“…it is clear from show cause notice that an opportunity has been given to the petitioner to put forward his case and petitioner has also filed his response claiming that he has not raised any construction whatsoever and has also assured that in case if any construction is raised in future, then it shall be done only after taking all necessary/mandatory permissions/clearances….”, the bench sitting at Jabalpur observed.

The show cause notice dated 18.06.2024 stated that Hooda had raised construction on the land near Kanha National Park without obtaining mandatory clearance from various Departments for construction in buffer/core zones.

Since the fact of raising any construction is disputed, the court added that it could not adjudicate the matter at present, and the show cause notice should be decided by the SDO within 15 days after conducting the proposed spot inspection.

The 47-year-old Actor-Director had purchased a piece of land near Kanha National Park. According to Hooda's counsel, Adv. Siddharth Sharma, the petitioner has been victimized by the authorities to 'gain cheap popularity' since he is a film actor. Moreover, not even a single brick has been laid on the said land by the actor, the counsel submitted before the court.

A civil defamation notice has already been sent to the authorities for damages to the tune of Rs 80 Crores for unnecessarily harassing the actor.

Apart from stating that the petition is immature, the counsel for the respondents argued that Hooda would be granted an opportunity to present his version in the proceedings before SDO.

After hearing both parties, the court held that an interim direction to halt construction could not be deemed as a final order that could be challenged before the High Court. The SDO (Revenue) could have issued a temporary injunction order against certain persons, including the petitioner-actor, based on an enquiry report: it cannot be considered as a finding on the merits, the court clarified.

The court has further directed the SDO to provide the petitioner with a copy of the enquiry report within 3 days of an application for the said purpose being made by the actor. Similarly, the petitioner-actor will be entitled to prefer another application before the SDO for spot inspection by the competent authority.

“…The date so fixed by SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat shall be binding on all the Authorities as well as petitioner and in case if the petitioner or his authorized person fails to participate in the spot inspection, then petitioner shall not have any right to claim that the spot inspection was carried out in absence of him or his authorized person”, the single judge bench made it clear.

In the meantime, Hooda will be able to challenge the spot inspection within 3 days after its completion. The court has also mentioned that the proceedings initiated pursuant to the enquiry report should be completed within 15 days after receiving the spot inspection report.

When the state submitted that it is probable for SDO (Revenue) to have already issued a final order on the show cause notice dated 18.06.2024 after mandating the petitioner to file a reply on 19.06.2024, the court granted the petitioner liberty to prefer an appeal.

“Since the present status of show cause notice is not clear, therefore it is observed that in case if a final order has already been passed, then the aforesaid observations shall also apply to the Appellate Authority and if necessary applications are made before the Appellate Authority, then the Appellate Authority shall pass necessary orders…”, the court held while disposing of the petition.

Advocate Mohan Sausarkar appeared for the state.

Case Title: Randeep Hooda v. State of MP & Ors.

Case No: Writ Petition No.19101 Of 2024

Click Here To Read/Download Order