news details |
|
|
| 'Presumptions, assumptions no answer' | | Taj's reply false, misleading, contempt to go on: SAC | | Syed Junaid Hashmi
JAMMU, Dec 24: In an initiative of far-reaching consequences, State Account-ability Commission (SAC) today held high profile Minister for PHE and Irrigation Taj Mohi-ud-din guilty of making false and misleading statements vis-à-vis alleged land grab at Sedhav forest area in Shopian district.
They rejected reply filed by Taj along with his lawyer Advocate Shah Mohammed Choudhary on December 17 and ordered initiating of contempt proceedings un-der the Jammu and Kash-mir Contempt of Courts Act-1997 against the politically vibrant and well-connected Minister. SAC issued notice to Taj Mohi-ud-din directing him to file statement of defence by the January 4, 2013.
Commission also requested Advocate Gen-eral to appear in the case on behalf of the state for assisting it in the prosecution of this matter. In the six page judgment, Chairp-erson of SAC Justice Y.P.Nargotra along with member Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain stated that they were not impressed with the reply of the PHE Minister. They observed that Taj Mohi-ud-din assumption of having been cleared by SAC should not have resulted in him making public statements and claiming of having been cleared.
The commission has refused to buy Taj Mohi-ud-din's arguments and stated that there is nothing in the records of SAC to suggest that the allegations of land grabbing were looked into or probed by the commission. It has further said that contents of the news item to that extent appearing in the daily newspaper are not factually incorrect. Commission has taken strong note of Taj Mohi-ud-din replying on assumptions and presumptions while replying to the contempt notice.
Commission has stated that Taj Mohi-ud-din who happens to be a sitting Cabinet Minister was put on notice on December 7 to show cause as to why contempt proceedings may not be initiated against him for having issued a statement published in a daily newspaper on November 28, 2012 claiming that Accountability Commission in September, 2005 had looked into the matter and conveyed to government that there was no forest land grab.
Following which, commission had sought reports of Deputy Registrar, Srinagar and Assistant Registrar;Jammu and found out that the statement was prima facie false. Taj along with his lawyer Shah Mohammad Chaudhary had appeared before the Commission comprising of Chairperson Justice Y P Nagrota and member Justice Hakim Imtiyaz Hussain on December 17.
Taj had in response claimed not to have issued statement to the press but a Demi-official letter dated 26-11-2012 which was addressed to the Minister for Forest wherein a request was made by him for constituting a joint demarcation committee of Revenue/ Forest Department's Officers/Officials to demarcate the land allegedly grabbed by him in Sedhav forest area of Shopian district. He had claimed that someone had leaked this DO to the press.
Commission has noticed that in the DO, there is an averment to the following effect existing in the letter, "the issue under reference stands looked into by Accountability Commission in September, 2005 and probed by Vigilance Organization, Kashmir in the year 2011 conveying that there is no Forest land grabbed." Commission has said that from the afore-said averment made in the letter, it is apparent and abundantly clear that contents of the news item appearing in a daily newspaper to that extent are not factually incorrect. Respondent in the letter addressed to the Forest Minister of the J&K Government had categorically made the statement referred to above.
On the question as to how he could have made such a claim when in the records of the Commission, there is nothing to suggest that the allegations of land grabbing were ever looked into or probed,Commission has referred to reply filed by Taj wherein he says that on 15-09-2005, he received a telephonic call from Ghulam Hassan Rather, the then Tehsildar Shopian, informing him that the Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama has directed him telephonically to demarcate the land situated at Sedhav, Shopian as some information/ report in the context, has been sought by the SAC.
Taj had further claimed that the then Tehsildar, Shopian vide his communication No. 1034/0Q/SPN dated 17 -09-2005 forwarded the demarcation report to the then Deputy Commissioner, Pulwama. Following this, Taj stated that from perusal of print media reports published in newspapers and the newspaper reports quoting sources saying the Chairman, Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission, Justice R.P. Sethi gave patient audience to the people and received the details in full, he presumed that a complaint was filed and registered before the commission by the people of Sedhav, Shopian in September 2005 against him.
Taj maintained that since no communication was received by him from SAC after filing of complaint by the people of Sedhav, he concluded that the complaint under reference may have been dismissed by this SAC during its preliminary scrutiny under relevant provisions of Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission Act, 2002 and rules framed there under.
SAC has said that Advocate Shah Mohammed Choudhary, Counsel for the respondent and respondent himself also contended that on the basis of the news items appearing in two valley based local dailies as well as the information received from the then Tehsildar, Shopian, Ghulam Hassan Rather, he (Taj) assumed and concluded that the complaint must have been looked into by Accountability Commission, and dismissed on finding no case of Forest Land grab against him. Taj said that he presumed, if the commission would have found something, he would have been put on notice.
Commission in its order maintains that Taj on the basis of the afore-said assumption and conclusion made the statement 'claiming of having been cleared by SAC' in the letter addressed by him to the Forest Minister. SAC after going through the reply filed by Taj stated that the respondent ought to have verified the facts from the records of the Commission while adding that statement made by him, thus, on the face of it appears to false and misleading.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
