Ramesh Pokhariyal vs State of Uttarakhand

Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.—Mr. Rakesh Thapaliyal, Advocate with Mr. Pankaj Chaturvedi, Advocate, present for the petitioner. Mr. K.P. Upadhyay, learned Chief Standing Counsel, present for the State of Uttarakhand/respondent Nos. 1 and 2.

This writ petition has been filed by the former Chief Minister of Uttarakhand who challenges the notice issued to him by an Inquiry Commission, appointed by the State Government for inquiring into the matter relating to the change of land use of a land belonging to a Company, namely, M/s. Citurgia Bio Chemicals Ltd.

Learned Counsel for the petitioner Sri Rakesh Thapaliyal contends that in the same matter, i.e., relating to the change of land use of M/s. Citurgia Bio Chemicals Ltd. a Public Interest Litigation was earlier filed before a Division Bench of this Court, headed by the Hon''ble the Chief Justice. In the said Public Interest Litigation, inter alia there was a prayer for C.B.I. Inquiry into the matter, in the said P.I.L., allegations were also raised against the present petitioner, who at time was the Chief Minister of the State.

In the said Public Interest Litigation following order was passed:

(a) The decision contained in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 30th October, 2007; the decision conveyed by the letter dated 14th March, 2008; the decision contained in the Minutes of the Meeting held on 24th September, 2009; the permission granted by the Hon''ble Chief Minister on 26th September, 2009 to grant exemption under the provisions of the 1973 Act; the decision dated 1st October, 2009 to use power u/s 53 of the 1973 Act; and the Notification published on 5th October, 2009 u/s 53 of the 1973 Act, as well as the sanction to construct, are quashed.

(b) The Government as well as Citurgia are directed to forthwith approach BIFR with a request to delete, from the approved revival Scheme, that part thereof,. which permits Citurgia to commercially exploit the land in question 24 and also the direction upon the State Government to grant permission to Citurgia to do so.

(c) BIFR is directed to forthwith delete that part of the sanctioned Scheme, which authorised Citurgia to commercially exploit the land in question and also the direction contained therein directing the Government to accord permission to Citurgia to do so.

(d) The District Magistrate, Dehradun, is directed to forthwith take actual physical possession of the land in question and to keep the same in his possession. He shall permit Citurgia to use the land in question for the purpose for which it had obtained the same under the conveyance referred to above and for no other purpose.

(e) The Government is directed to take steps pursuant to the terms and conditions contained in the conveyance, if it is of the opinion that Citurgia has committed breach of the covenants contained therein.

Before parting, we feel that Government should enquire into the conduct of its officers pertaining to the subject dealt with above, since such conduct does not inspire public confidence.

The argument of the learned Counsel for the petitioner would be that since the prayer for C.B.I. Inquiry was denied and in fact the Division Bench did not say anything against the present petitioner and directions were only to hold an inquiry against the officers concerned, the present enquiry, therefore amongst other things, the action on the part of the enquiry officer also amounts to a contempt of this Court. He further states that subsequent to the Division Bench''s order, an inquiry was conducted by an Inquiry Commission which was by a retired Hon''ble Judge of this Court [Hon''ble Mr. Justice B.C. Kandpal] who gave a report in the matter which did not find anything improper against any of the officers or the then Chief Minister (present writ petitioner). However, the report was challenged before this Hon''ble Court by filing Writ Petition (PIL) No. 102 of 2011 and since a statement was made by the learned Advocate General that the State Government has appointed another Commission, the matter was disposed of on 24.6.2013 by the Division Bench of this Court by the following order:

The learned Advocate General has submitted that the Government, after considering the report, felt it necessary to appoint another Commission to go into the selfsame subject. That Commission is now seized of the matter. It has been clarified by the learned Advocate General that the Commission, which is now seized of the matter, is also looking into some other matters. We, accordingly, feel that the Government has neither accepted the report under challenge nor has acted thereon.

We, accordingly, dispose of the writ petition. It is made clear, however, that the report may be placed before the Commission by the Government or by anyone else, if they so please, for its consideration.

Now according to the petitioner, another Commission is appointed, which consist of a retired I.A.S. Officer, namely, Mr. Sushil Chandra Tripathi.

The contention of the petitioner is that since the matter against the petitioner stands concluded by the Division Bench, against which a SLP was filed before the Hon''ble Apex Court and the same has also been dismissed on 20.10.2011, the matter now stands concluded and the inquiry officer cannot proceed in the present manner. According to the petitioner, this fact was also brought to the notice of the Inquiry Officer, by a written reply of the petitioner, yet he is proceeding with the matter.

In the opinion of this Court, there is absolutely no doubt that the matters regarding corruption and corrupt practices concerning public servants, no matter how high or mighty they may be, must be enquired and the guilty must be punished. All the same, it is a cause of some concern to this Court as to why the Inquiry Officer in the present case is proceeding with the matter, once prima facie the matter stands concluded by a Division Bench decision of this Court, particularly when this fact is within the knowledge of Inquiry Officer.

The learned Chief Standing Counsel Mr. K.P. Upadhyay appears in this matter for the State and prays that no interim order be granted at this stage as the concern of this Court shall be addressed in its counter-affidavit. In view thereof, no interference is presently being made.

Learned State Counsel shall file its counter-affidavit within a period of three weeks.

List this matter on 11th March, 2014 in daily cause list. Meanwhile, before submitting any report, Interim or Final in the matter, the Inquiry Commission concerned shall decide the preliminary objections raised by the petitioner.