Chattisgarh High Court
Mukesh Gupta vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 April, 2022
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Order Sheet
W.P.(C). No. 1505 of 2022
Mukesh Gupta, S/o. Shri Jai Deo Gupta, aged about 59 years, R/o. E-2, Civil Lines,
Raipur Chhattisgarh, Presently At S -141, Ground Floor, Panchsheel Park, New
Delhi - 110017.
---- Petitioner
Versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, through : the Chief Secretary, Govt. of Chhattisgarh,
Mahanadi Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh
492001.
2. Retd. Justice Shri Shambhunath Shrivastava, the Chairmen Madanwada
Special Judicial Inquiry Commission, R/o. Plot No. 41, High Court Judges
Colony, Sector 105, Noida (U.P.).
3. Madanwada Special Judicial Inquiry Commission, through : its Secretary,
General Administration Department, Government of Chhattisgarh, Mahanadi
Bhawan, Mantralaya, Naya Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh 492001.
---- Respondents
Mr. Mahesh Jethmalani, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Vivek Sharma,
12/04/2022
Mr. Ravi Sharma, Mr. Gary Mukhopadhyay, Ms. Ayushi Agrawal and
Mr. Abhishek Chandra Gupta, Advocates for the petitioner.
Mr. S.C. Verma, Advocate General with Mr. Chandresh
Shrivastava, Additional A.G. for the State-respondent No.1.
Heard on petition and also on I.A. No.1/2022, application for
grant of interim relief.
It is submitted by the learned counsel appearing on behalf of
the petitioner that the petitioner is challenging the enquiry report
submitted by the respondent No.2, in which, derogatory remarks have
been made against the petitioner without giving him any opportunity of
hearing.
It is submitted that Section 8 (b) of the Commissions of Inquiry
Act, 1952 (In short 'the Act, 1952') provides that, if at any stage of the
inquiry, the Commission considers it necessary to inquire into the
conduct of any person, or is of opinion that the reputation of any
person is likely to be prejudicially affected by the inquiry, then such
person shall be given reasonable opportunity of being heard in inquiry
proceeding and to produce evidence in his defence. This provision
has not been complied with and also the Section 8 (c) of the Act,
1952 has not been complied.
It is further submitted that the petitioner had filed an application,
before the Commission praying for recusal, but the same was not
decided until the report was submitted, therefore, it is the allegation of
the petitioner that the report of the Commission is based on bias.
Hence, the case be admitted for hearing and interim relief be granted.
Learned Advocate General representing the respondent No.1
opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the
petitioner and submits that Section 8 (b) of the Act, 1956 has been
complied, regarding which, notice was served upon the petitioner vide
Annexure P-8 filed by the petitioner. Further the notification
constituting Commission does not mention of any enquiry to be held
against the petitioner. The petitioner appeared before the Commission
through counsel, which discloses that he had knowledge of the
proceeding, before the commission. Copy of the order sheets have
been annexed along with the petition itself. It is submitted that the
Chairman of the Commission has disposed off the application for the
recusal, which is part of the record, therefore, the allegations made by
the petitioner against the Chairman of the Commission and the
Commission are malicious. Reliance has been placed on the judgment
in case of Common Cause Vs. Union of India & Ors, reported in
(2017) 9 SCC 499, Goa Foundation Vs. Union of India & Ors.,
reported in (2014) 6 SCC 590, Shri Ram Krishna Dalmia Vs. Shri
Justice S.R. Tendolkar, reported in AIR 1958 SC 538, State of
Karnatka Vs. Union of India, reported in (1977) 4 SCC 608. It is
submitted that present petition is not maintainable. Hence, it may be
dismissed.
In reply, it is submitted by the learned counsel for the petitioner
that the citation on which the learned Advocate General has placed
reliance are irrelevant in this case. The relevant citation is State of
Bihar Vs. Lal Krishna Advani, reported in (2003) 8 SCC 361, in
which it is held that the compliance of Section 8(b) of the Act, 1952 is
a must. Failure to comply the same renders the action non est. It is
further submitted that the notice to which the learned Advocate
General has referred was served upon the petitioner to appear as a
witness in the case, therefore, it can not be regarded as notice under
Section 8(b) of the Act, 1952.
I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered
on the submissions made.
After considering on the submissions made by both the parties,
this petition is admitted for hearing.
Notice be issued to the respondents No.2 and 3. Process fee as
per rules.
After perusing the report of the Commission and the
recommendation that have been made, I am of this view that there is
no requirement to issue any interim order in this case.
Hence, I.A. No.1/2022, application for grant of interim relief is
rejected.
List this case for submission of reply after eight weeks.
Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)
Judge
balram
