Govt Can Take Decision For Continuation Of Commission Probing Gurugam Land Scam Involving Former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda: High Court
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the State Government shall be at liberty to take a decision for continuation of the Commission constituted to probe Gurugram land deal scam involving former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda.Justice Anil Kshetrapal said that, "When the Commission has not ceased to exist, it can be revived by the appropriate Government for the fulfilment...
The Punjab & Haryana High Court has made it clear that the State Government shall be at liberty to take a decision for continuation of the Commission constituted to probe Gurugram land deal scam involving former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda.
Justice Anil Kshetrapal said that, "When the Commission has not ceased to exist, it can be revived by the appropriate Government for the fulfilment of its purpose, as it will be in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act (the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952)."
The Court was hearing petition filed by former Haryana CM Bhupinder Singh Hooda challenging the formation of the commission headed by Justice S N Dhingra to probe grant of licences for development of commercial colonies in Gurgaon, involving Robert Vadra & DLF.
The Justice SN Dhingra Commission was constituted under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 in 2015 by former CM ML Khattar government to investigate into various land deals and license granted in Gurugram during Hooda's government.
In 2019, the division bench of the High Court had held that the government had enough material to set up the Commission and there was no illegality and malafide intention in the decision.
However, Justices Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Ajay Kumar Mittal had differed over the issue of further proceedings by the same or different commission. Consequently, the Court had referred the issue to the third judge.
Conflict Of Opinion In Division Bench
Section 8B of Commision of Inquiry Act states that if the reputation of any person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, then the Commission shall give to that person a reasonable opportunity of being heard and to produce evidence in his defence.
Justice Mittal said that the Commission can start afresh on the point of issuance of notice to Hooda under Section 8B of the Commissions of Inquiry Act. Whereas, while quashing the Commission's report Justice Grewal opined that the Commission was no more in existence and at that stage the government can only create a new Commission on the same subject.
"In the case at hand, the Commission of Inquiry was appointed on 14.5.2015 and its term was for a period of 6 months. The term was extended by period of 6 months vide notification dated 7.12.2015 and further extended till 31.8.2016 by notification dated 1.7.2016. The Commission submitted its report on 31.8.2016. The Commission is no longer in existence and thus, it would not be possible for it to issue afresh notice under Section 8-B of the Act," said Justice Grewal.
Decision By Third Judge
After hearing the submissions, Justice Kshetrapal noted that the Government has nowhere notified the cessation of the Commission of Inquiry under Section 7(1)(a) of the 1952 Act as mandatorily required.
The judge opined that the argument that "the Commission of Inquiry becomes functus officio or ceases to exist is erroneous as the Commission never ceased to exist."
"The appropriate Government Vide the notification dated 2nd September, 2016 ended the term of the Commission for making an Inquiry, however, it shall not be considered as the notification issued under Section 7 of the 1952 Act", it added.
Justice Kshetrapal said, when the Commission has not ceased to exist, it can be revived by the appropriate Government for the fulfilment of its purpose, as it will be in consonance with the spirit of the provisions of the Act.
While disposing of the plea, the Court said that the appropriate Government shall be at liberty to take a decision for continuation of the Commission, as it may deem fit. "It shall be open for the Commission to continue the proceedings from the stage when notice under Section 8B of the 1952 Act was required to be issued, it added.
Bhupinder Singh Hooda v. State of Haryana and others
Narender Hooda, Sr. Advocate with Advocates Pardeep Singh Poonia, Pulkit Dhanda, Shivendra Dwivedi. Rashi Chaudhary, Karan Hooda for the petitioner
B.R.Mahajan, Advocate General, Haryana with Samarth Sagar, Addl. AG, Haryana and
J.S.Pannu, AAG, Haryana.
2024 LiveLaw (PH) 152