Govt can revive Dhingra panel for Gurugram land deals’ probe: High Court

Saurabh Malik

Chandigarh, May 10

More than five years after a Division Bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court held Dhingra Commission report to be “non est” or invalid while putting a bar on its publication, a third Judge has made it clear that the government can order the panel’s continuation. The commission was set up in May 2015 for looking into Gurugram land deals, including those involving Congress president Sonia Gandhi’s son-in-law Robert Vadra.

Difference of opinion

The Division Bench, in January 2019, had expressed difference of opinion over the issue of further proceedings by the same or different commission. Justice AK Mittal had asserted that notice under Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiries Act was essential as the report affected former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s repute. But the same was not done.

Justice Anil Kshetarpal, to whom the matter was referred to following difference of opinion within the Division Bench, asserted that the report was partially set aside on technical ground following failure to follow the procedure. But it would not debar the government from ordering its continuation as the purpose for its constitution had not been fulfilled.

The Division Bench, in January 2019, had expressed difference of opinion over the issue of further proceedings by the same or different commission. Justice AK Mittal had asserted that notice under Section 8-B of the Commission of Inquiries Act was essential as the report affected former Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda’s repute. But the same was not done.

The notice issued did not fulfil the essentially required conditions. Accordingly, the report submitted by the commission was held to be “non est”. Section 8-B requires a commission to give a person reasonable opportunity of being heard during the inquiry and to produce evidence in his defence. The judgment added it would be open for the commission to proceed further from the stage notice under Section 8-B was required to be issued before submitting fresh report.

Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal differed on the issue of notice by the commission, asserting that the commission was no longer in existence and it would not be possible for it to issue a fresh notice under Section 8-B. Its terms were extended twice till August 31, 2016, and it submitted its report on that date.

Justice Kshetarpal asserted the government nowhere notified the commission’s cessation as mandatorily required. The argument that the commission became functus officio or ceased to exist was erroneous as it never ceased to exist. As the commission had not ceased to exist, it could be revived by the government for the fulfilment of its purpose.

“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 8-B of the 1952 Act was required to be issued,” Justice Kshetarpal concluded.