E-Paper
Punjab: HC orders removal of adverse remarks against four persons by Narang panel
The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered removal of adverse remarks against four persons by the Narang Commission, set up by the Congress government in Punjab in 2017 to look into then minister Rana Gurjit Singh’s role in controversial sand mining auction for two mines
The Punjab and Haryana high court has ordered removal of adverse remarks against four persons by the Narang Commission, set up by the Congress government in Punjab in 2017 to look into then minister Rana Gurjit Singh’s role in controversial sand mining auction for two mines.
The Justice JS Narang (retd) Commission, set up on May 30, 2017, under the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952, submitted its report on August 9, 2017, in which the minister was exonerated.
However, the commission made adverse remarks against Sanjeet Singh Randhawa, Sahil Singla, Amit Bahadur and Kulvinder Paul Singh, who were linked to firms awarded mining tenders of two sites in Saidpur Khurd and Mehadipur villages of Nawanshahr. The one-man inquiry panel gave a clean chit to Rana Gurjit on all counts, but said the bids of ₹26.52 crore and ₹9.21 crore by Amit Bahadur and Kulvinder Paul Singh, who were accused of being frontmen of the minister for mines in Saidpur Khurd and Mehadipur villages of Nawanshahr, respectively, were “not sustainable”.
They had approached high court in 2018 against these findings arguing that notwithstanding the exoneration of the cabinet minister against whom the commission had been notified, it made certain remarks and recorded adverse finding, comments, inference, conclusion as well as recommendation against them, in violation of the mandate of Section 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. Section 8B deals with the rights of a person who has been commented upon in the report and 8C deals with his right of cross-examination and representation by legal practitioner.
The high court bench of justice Vinod S Bhardwaj observed that notices sent to them are in the nature of summoning them to appear as a witness and to depose in an inquiry. “At no point of time, the petitioners were made aware that an inquiry was being conducted against them as well,” the bench recorded.
It further said that state’s counsel has failed to point out any part of the report as per which the petitioners were apprised about commission’s intentions to conduct an inquiry into their conduct and that any opportunity of producing evidence in defence was ever granted to them. The bench said the provision in question and procedure has already been held to be mandatory by the Supreme Court. Hence, the court set aside remarks recorded against the petitioners, holding them “bad in law” and being in violation of the mandatory procedure as prescribed under Section 8-B and 8-C of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. It also said that petitioners would be at liberty to make a reference to the judgment in any other ancillary proceedings that may be initiated against them, in view of the commission’s remarks.
