news details |
|
|
| Complaint against Suman, PRO to sustain; others relieved | | HC cuts SAC to size, declares suo moto probes ultra-vires | | Early Times Report
Jammu, Jan 5: The tainted politicians and bureaucrats today heaved a sigh of relief when the High Court axed the powers of State Accountability Commission (SAC) to take suo moto cognizance of various issues. The Court declared Regulation 9 as ultra vires to the State Accountability Commission Act 2002.
Allowing six petitions filed by Mohinder Singh & Ors, Dr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Peerzada Mohd Sayeed & Ors, Satvir Gupta then DIG Udhampur-Doda Range, Rattan Lal Tickoo and Sheikh Rafiq Ahmed whereas in two petitions filed by former Minister Suman Lata Bhagat and another and Vikas Behal PRO & another, High Court disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to project their stand and also produce such evidence as they may deem proper before the State Accountability Commission.
Barring Suman Bagat, complaints against above mentioned respondents were anonymous or partially anonymous where the details about complainant were not known. Justice Hasnain Massodi after hearing the petitioners observed that Commission may have 'implicit' or 'implied' power reasonably deducible from its explicit power to regulate its procedure but it does not have inherent power that would overrides the Act, or be in conflict with any of the provisions of the Act or the rules made there under and the discussion leads to the conclusion that the Commission cannot claim to have an inherent power to suo moto order investigation, inquiry or proceedings against a public functionary.
The court also held corruption more dangerous than external aggression. "The Jammu and Kashmir State Accountability Commission Act, 2002 is one of the responses formulated by the legislature to fight the menace. However, seriousness or gravity of the problem must not prompt us to make a departure from fundamental principles that govern exercise of powers by a statutory body."
The Court held that the Regulation 9 is held to be ultra vires the Jammu and Kashmir Accountability Commission and beyond power given to the Commission under Section 31 of the Act and, is accordingly, struck down. The proceedings initiated against the petitioners Mohinder Singh & Ors, Dr. Manohar Lal Sharma, Peerzada Mohd Sayeed & Ors, Satvir Gupta then DIG Udhampur-Doda Range, Rattan Lal Tickoo and Sheikh Rafiq Ahmed by the Commission suo moto on anonymous complaints, or the complaints filed without sufficient particulars of the complaint(s), so as to identify the complaints and, therefore, as good as anonymous are without jurisdiction and are, accordingly, quashed and the petitions are, therefore, allowed.
However, as regards proceedings initiated against Suman Lata Bhagat and Vikas Behal alias Vikas Bhagat in OWP Nos. 902/2006 and 72/2007, the Commission had before it a complaint filed by Mohd Shafi Indrabi lodged in accordance with the Act.
The Commission while proceeding with the inquiry, considered it necessary to inquire into the conduct of Suman Lata Bhagat then Minister for Health and Medical Education, Abdul Gani Sofi, Minister for Health and Medical Education, Vikas Bhagat then PRO of Minister for Health and Medical Education and Halima Principal AMT, School, Srinagar-successor in office of Ranjit Kour respondent in the complaint. The proceedings initiated fall within the ambit of Section 27 of the Act.
The proceedings against the petitioners in OWP Nos. 902/2006 and 72/2007 having been initiated in exercise of powers vested in the Commission under Section 27 of the Act cannot be faulted as the proceedings are markedly distinguishable from suo moto proceedings in absence of a complaint lodged under the Act. The grounds urged in the petitions, independent of challenge to the authority of the Commission to suo moto initiate proceedings, are factual in character and to be dealt with by the Commission after the petitioners in response to the notice, avail the opportunity of being heard and produce the evidence in their defence.
The writ petition bearing OWP Nos. 902/2006 and 72/2007 are, therefore, disposed of giving liberty to the petitioners to project their stand and also produce such evidence as they may deem proper before the Commission. JNF |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
| |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
