E-Paper
HC stays probe against SGPC chief Jagir Kaur
The high court acted on the plea of Kaur who had challenged Punjab Lokpal’s order of a probe under Section 13 of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996. The 2011 complaint is about nagar panchayat land in possession of a school
Chandigarh The Punjab and Haryana high court on Thursday stayed a January 8 order of Punjab Lokpal ordering probe against Shiromani Gurdwara Parbandhak Committee (SGPC) president and former Bholath MLA, Bibi Jagir Kaur, in alleged encroachment of 20 acre.
The high court acted on the plea of Kaur who had challenged Punjab Lokpal’s order of a probe under Section 13 of the Punjab Lokpal Act, 1996.
The 2011 complaint is about nagar panchayat land in possession of a school, which was set up on a common land and as to how such a land changed hands and came in possession of the society, which is running the school. Kaur has remained president of the society on different occasions. The land, according to the complaint, belongs to Begowal nagar panchayat and is worth ₹100 crore. The complainant is one George Subh, who has alleged that the beneficiary had even raised illegal construction on the land that should be razed and restored to the nagar panchayat.
Kaur had argued in high court that under Section 10 of the Act, the Lokpal has power to inquire into allegations of misconduct against a public figure within five years from the date of occurrence of that misconduct. However, in the present case, the issue would not fall within the scope and ambit of Section 10 of the Act for an inquiry to be directed, her lawyer, R Kartikeya had argued.
The lokpal was told that school was set up in 1995 and was being managed by a society, and she had remained president of the society at different points of time. These objections, even though noticed in the order passed by Lokpal has not been dealt with, she had told court adding that Under section 12 (3) of the Act any order passed by the Lokpal affecting rights of a person complained against has to be a speaking order.
However, the impugned order passed cannot be construed as a speaking one, as much as the objections specifically raised by her have not been dealt with, it was argued. The high court has sought response from the state government by August 10.
