E-Paper
Gurugram land deals: Haryana govt can continue with Dhingra probe panel: HC
The commission was set up by then chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar government in 2015 to probe allegations that laws were flouted in granting land licences in Gurugram during the Bhupinder Singh Hooda-led Congress regime between 2004-2014
Nearly five years after the Punjab and Haryana high court (HC) quashed the report of justice (retd) SN Dhingra commission of inquiry (CoI) into the alleged land scam in Gurugram, a third judge has ruled that the state government can notify panel’s continuation.
The commission was set up by then chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar government in 2015 to probe allegations that laws were flouted in granting land licences in Gurugram during the Bhupinder Singh Hooda-led Congress regime between 2004-2014. Among the alleged beneficiary companies was one owned by Robert Vadra, brother-in-law of Congress leader Rahul Gandhi.
In 2019, the division bench of justice AK Mittal (now retired) and justice Anupinder Singh Grewal upheld the government decision of appointing the commission, a decision termed by Hooda an act of “witch hunt and political vendetta”. However, HC rejected the report and restrained government from acting on it and making it public. The judges had differed on further course of action –while justice Mittal said same commission can serve him fresh notices under Section 8B of Commission of Inquiry Act, which deals with the rights of a person, who has been commented upon in the report. Justice Grewal said since term of commission is over, the government can appoint a fresh commission. It was on this issue, the matter was referred to chief justice, who assigned the matter to justice Anil Kshetarpal for his opinion as third judge.
Justice Kshetarpal has now said the government would be at liberty to take a decision for continuation of the commission. Also, it would 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 to Hooda.
“In the matter at hand, the appropriate government has nowhere notified the cessation of the commission of inquiry under Section 7(1)(a) of the 1952 Act as mandatorily required. The courts have no power to implicitly derive from a statute what has not been explicitly granted. The courts should not assume powers or meanings beyond what is clearly stated in law. Instead, the statutes shall be interpreted according to the legislative intent. So, the argument that the commission of inquiry becomes functus officio or ceases to exist is erroneous as the commission never ceased to exist,” justice Kshetarpal observed, adding that September, 2016 notification of the government ending term of the commission cannot be considered a notification under Section 7 of the 1952 Act. “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,” justice Kshetarpal asserted.
Samarth Sagar, additional advocate general of Haryana, who had appeared with state’s advocate general BR Mahajan, said with this opinion, the government can issue a notification for revival of the term of the commission and commission can start its work from serving with a notice under Section 8B of the act on Hooda.
Barred publication of report in 2019
The judges part of the division bench in 2019 had perused the report and found that it touches and opines on the conduct of Hooda and affects his reputation. Hence, he should have been given an opportunity to defend himself.
Upon perusal of the report, the judges found that Hooda has been commented upon in the report but found procedural lapses in serving notice to him. It is mandatory to serve a notice on the person, wherever the conclusion of the report affects the reputation of a delinquent person, the said person is required to be served with a notice under Section 8B of the act, the bench concluded.
The constitution of the panel was challanged by Hooda in November 2016. Hooda had claimed that Khattar did not have “material” evidence before him when he decided to order the commission probe on May 13, 2015, which, he said, is a prerequisite in ordering such a probe.
