The High Court quashed corruption charges against former Haryana CM Bhupinder Hooda and AJL in the Panchkula plot re-allotment case, saying no offence was made out. The Court held that the prosecution was an “abuse of process” and found no evidence of loss, conspiracy or misuse of position.
In a major relief to Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside the criminal charges framed against them in connection with the alleged irregular re-allotment of an institutional plot in Panchkula.
The case arose out of allegations that the plot was re-allotted at old rates, causing loss to the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA).
The matter relates to a plot that was originally allotted to AJL in 1982 for setting up the office of National Herald and for publishing a Hindi newspaper. In 2005, during Hooda’s tenure as Chief Minister and Chairman of HUDA, the plot was re-allotted to AJL.
The decision was later unanimously ratified by HUDA in 2006. However, in 2016, the Haryana Vigilance Bureau registered an FIR in the matter. After a change in government, the probe was transferred to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), which filed a chargesheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act against AJL, Hooda, and late Congress leader Moti Lal Vora. In 2021, a trial court framed charges against AJL and Hooda.
Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya of the High Court examined the entire record and found that the essential ingredients of the alleged offences were not made out even at a prima facie level. The Court noted that Hooda’s 2005 decision had been ratified by HUDA and that no competent court had declared the re-allotment illegal.
The Court clearly observed,
“The allotment is valid as on date, it has also not been cancelled, nor declared illegal or arbitrary. Instead, the AJL after payment of re-allotment price as well as the extension fee has raised construction, and has been given occupation certificate by the Authority on 14.08.2014. No grievance has been raised regarding any loss to the Authority; nor has the AJL or any other accused been called upon to make good any perceived harm. Even the Government auditors have dropped their objection regarding financial loss to the Authority on account of this re-allotment,”
The High Court also strongly criticised the continuation of the criminal proceedings and said,
“Continuation of prosecution will be an abuse of the process of Court. Consequently, both the petitions are allowed. The impugned orders, dated 16.04.2021, framing charges against the petitioners as well as dismissing the discharge application, are hereby set aside along with all subsequent proceedings arising therefrom, and the petitioners stand discharged,”
The Court found fault with the CBI’s approach and said that the agency could not unilaterally declare the re-allotment illegal. It made strong remarks in this regard:
“Ignoring these vital facts of the matter, the CBI has taken upon itself to term the re-allotment illegal being violative of the 1977 Act which would, in its view, attract criminal liability under the provisions of the IPC and the PC Act invoked against the petitioners. It is unfathomable as to how the investigating agency can consider the re-allotment of plot unlawful on its own, and proceed to register a criminal case on the basis. This is absolutely illegal, and far from any procedure known to law,”
On the allegation of conspiracy and cheating, the Court stated that there was no material to show any agreement between Hooda and AJL to cause wrongful loss to HUDA. It recorded,
“Although there has been a request from the AJL seeking restoration of the plot to it, there is no material forthcoming to indicate that it was in concurrence with BSH [Hooda] to fraudulently or dishonestly get the plot restored at original rates,”
The Court further noted that AJL had paid the full re-allotment price and extension fee as demanded by HUDA. Therefore, it remarked,
“It is, therefore, rather strange to accuse the AJL of harboring any intention to cause loss to the Authority by seeking restoration of the plot in question. And once the intention of causing any loss cannot be attributed to the AJL, it cannot be accused of conspiring with BSH for any wrongful gain,”
The High Court also dealt with the issue of alleged financial loss. It pointed out that the initial allotment was made on a ‘no profit no loss’ basis at ₹91 per square yard and that objections regarding financial loss had been dropped by the Deputy Accountant General in 2009.
The Court observed,
“Merely because statements of some officers of the Authority or Government have been recorded to the effect that re-allotment of the plot at current rates would have fetched more money to the Authority, it cannot form a basis to contend that any loss has actually been caused. The statements are without any factual basis. To claim on this premise that the re-allotment caused any loss to the Authority, is fictional which cannot afford any ground to frame charge for commission of the alleged offences,”
On the allegation of misuse of official position, the Court made it clear that the re-allotment order had been ratified by the Authority and had never been declared illegal.
It said,
“It cannot be said that BSH has misused his position as a public servant, as the order passed by him to re-allot the plot has been ratified by the Authority unanimously, and the decision has been duly implemented. The ratification gives validity to the order from the date it has been passed. Also, the abuse of position as a public servant presupposes an unlawful act which is not the case as the re-allotment has not been termed illegal by any competent Court or Tribunal,”
Although the Court noted that Hooda had ignored certain legal advice and official notings while passing the order, it held that this alone would not attract penal provisions under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Court clarified,
“He is not accused of obtaining any undue pecuniary advantage for himself by passing the order, nor can he be accused of obtaining such an advantage for anyone else, as discussed hereinbefore. Accordingly, it cannot be said that the order was passed with a dishonest intention, which is the essence of the offence alleged against him,”
The High Court also questioned the fairness of the CBI investigation, observing that only Hooda was chargesheeted while other members of HUDA who ratified the decision were not. It remarked,
“Besides, the fact that the CBI has chosen to chargesheet only BSH, Chairman of the Authority, by ignoring all other members who ratified the decision, also raises doubts about its bona fides and the nature of investigation carried out. It gives credence to the assertions made by Mr. Cheema [Senior Advocate RS Cheema] that BSH has been framed in the case for ulterior motives,”
Regarding the allegation that AJL mortgaged the constructed building to take loans, the Court found no criminal intent, especially since it was done with HUDA’s permission. The judge observed,
“Also, it could not be pointed out that there was violation of any specific term of re-allotment by the AJL in mortgaging the plot. The only condition said to have been violated requires that the plot cannot be used for any purpose other than the one it had been allotted for. Mortgaging the property for securing some loans does not indicate in any manner that the plot is not being used for the purpose it has been allotted, i.e., publication of a Hindi newspaper. Also, this mortgage of property by the AJL after seven years of re-allotment, cannot possibly have any bearing on the act of re-allotment vide order dated 28.08.2005,”
Finally, the Court held that the trial court had ignored these important aspects while framing charges. It concluded,
“Accordingly, the orders passed by learned Special Judge rejecting the petitioner’s discharge application and framing charges are perverse and have resulted in miscarriage of justice,”
With these findings, the High Court discharged AJL and Bhupinder Singh Hooda from all charges, bringing an end to the criminal proceedings in this long-running case. Senior advocates Sartej Singh Narula and RS Cheema led the defence for AJL and Hooda respectively, while Advocate Ravi Kamal Gupta appeared for the CBI.
Case Title:
The Associated Journals Limited v Central Bureau of Investigation,
Read Judgement
Click Here to Read More Reports On Panchkula Land Case
FOLLOW US FOR MORE LEGAL UPDATES ON YOUTUBE
