IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.
CWP No.16216 of 2008
Date of decision: 15.9.2008
Captain Amrinder Singh.
........Petitioner
Vs.
The Special Committee, Punjab Vidhan Sabha and others.
-----Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI
Present Mr. Uday Lalit, Sr. Advocate,
M/s Atul Nanda, Puneet Bali, Sandeep Bajaj and Ms. Rameeja
Hakeem, Advocates for the petitioner.
ORDER:
1. This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenges
constitution of a Committee in pursuance of the decision of the Punjab
Assembly on 18.12.2007 vide Annexure P-25, report submitted by the said
Committee dated 3.9.2008, Annexure P-35 and resolution passed by the
Punjab Assembly on 10.9.2008, Annexure P.36. By the said resolution, the
petitioner has been expelled for the remaining term of the 13th Assembly,
Secretary of the Vidhan Sabha has been directed to approach the Election
Commission to have the seat declared vacant and report of the Privilege
Committee has been ordered to be forwarded to the Chief Secretary with
instruction to file FIR with Vigilance Department to give a report to the
CWP No.16216 of 2008 2
Speaker within two months. It has also been expressed therein that it was
essential to have custodial interrogation of the persons mentioned in the
resolution.
2. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner on the issue of
admission of the writ petition and on prayer for interim relief.
3. We consider it appropriate to pass a brief reasoned order even
at admission stage.
4. The petitioner was Chief Minister of the State of Punjab and
took a decision on 17.2.2004 of “granting licences to developed colonies
under the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 vis-à-vis
the schemes of the Improvement Trusts”. This was followed by notification
dated 12/13. 1.2006, purporting to be under Section 56 of the Punjab Town
Improvement Act, 1922, exempting 32.10 acres of land covered under the
Development Scheme of the Improvement Trust, Amritsar, to be utilised by
M/s Veer Builders and Colonizers Pvt. Ltd. for colonization. The said land
had been earlier covered by notification for development plan by the
Improvement Trust. The Punjab Assembly on 18.12.2007 resolved to
constitute a Committee in pursuance of which, a Committee was constituted
to investigate the reasons for exemption, whether any rules/norms were
violated, whether any loss was suffered by the Improvement Trust and who
was responsible for the said loss. The Committee gave its report dated
3.9.2008, inter-alia, holding that exemption of land from the Improvement
Trust Scheme in favour of M/s Veer Builders and Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. was
illegal and for extraneous considerations, causing loss of Rs.360 crores to
CWP No.16216 of 2008 3
the Improvement Trust. The order of exemption was contrary to the
declared Government policy. Beneficiary was M/s Veer Builders and
Colonisers Pvt. Ltd. The record of the Improvement Trust was tampered
with. For the said acts, the petitioner, the then Local Bodies Minister Shri
Jagjeet Singh, the then Housing Minister Shri Jugal Kishore Sharma, the
then Chairman, Improvement Trust and one late Shri Raghunath Sahai Puri
were responsible, out of whom, the petitioner was the present member of the
Assembly. On the basis of the said report, the impugned resolution has
been passed.
5. Contentions raised in the writ petition, inter-alia, are:-
i) Action for which the impugned resolution has been adopted
by the Assembly relates to the period prior to its
constitution. The present Assembly was constituted on
3.3.2007, while action of the petitioner is of the year
2004/2006.
ii) The action of the petitioner was not in his capacity as
member of the House but in exercise of his executive power
as Chief Minister.
iii) The matter was sub judice in C.W.P. No.16923 of 2006
(Major General Sukhdeep Singh Randhawa v. State of
Punjab), C.WP. No.20266 of 2006 (M/s Daljeet Singh v.
State of Punjab), C.W.P. No.2929 of 2007 (Sudarshan
Kaur v. State of Punjab) and C.W.P. No.7838 of 2008
CWP No.16216 of 2008 4(Basant Colonisers & Builder (P) Ltd. v. State of
Punjab) and could not be gone into by the Assembly. The
same would not form basis of any adverse finding or action.
iv) The Assembly cannot arrogate to itself the power of
Courts/investigation.
v) The report was uncalled for on merits and had been given
without following required procedure and was malafide on
account of political vendetta.
6. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the impugned
resolution was beyond the constitutional authority of the Assembly. The
punitive power of the Assembly was limited to punish for contempt or for
breach of privilege in the capacity of a member. While the Assembly could
ascertain a fact situation to enact law or to make recommendation, it could
not punish a member for his actions in his executive capacity when such
actions were prior to constitution of present Assembly. Learned counsel,
inter-alia, referred to judgments of the Hon’ble Supreme Court including
recent judgment in Raja Ram Pal v. Hon’ble Speaker, Lok Sabha, 2007
(3) SCC 184, on scope of interference with power of expulsion, effect of
dissolution of House, scope of powers of the House, concept of Sub Judice,
Theory of separation of powers and Rules of Procedure and Conduct of
Business of the Punjab Vidhan Sabha.
7. There is no doubt about the legal position as to maintainability
of writ petition against action of Legislature, if such action was beyond its
CWP No.16216 of 2008 5
constitutional authority. However, in the present case, the question is
whether the impugned resolution can be held to be beyond constitutional
jurisdiction of the Assembly and whether exercise of said jurisdiction in any
manner violates fundamental or other rights of the petitioner which can be
enforced under Article 226 of the Constitution. Judgments relied upon on
behalf of the petitioner do not directly cover the issue involved.
8. At this stage, we will discuss the issue only with a view to
consider prayer for ad interim relief and admission of the petition.
9. It is no longer res integra that Legislature, as a sovereign
institution, can expel its member in exercise of its inherent power to uphold
its own dignity and discipline. In the present case, the resolution is
preceded by an inquiry report by a Committee, inter-alia, recording a
finding of the petitioner being involved in corruption. Though, there is no
threshold bar to challenge the said decision on the ground of violation of
fundamental rights or any other illegality, scope of judicial review is not the
same as in the case of an ordinary administrative action. Legislative body is
a coordinate constitutional organ. Adequacy or correctness of finding may
not be gone into while gross illegality, irrationality, perversity may be seen.
The Court will not lightly presume abuse of power.
10. Subject to the matter being examined in greater detail, at this
stage, it is not possible to hold that the Assembly had no material before it
or that pendency of a writ petition about validity of action debarred the
Assembly from exercise of its power, which is not for the same purpose and
is not exercised on the same parameters, as adjudication of writ petitions,
CWP No.16216 of 2008 6
the legislative body being a sovereign authority to take its own decision in
exercise of its power to regulate its business. Thus, we do not find any
ground to stay the order of expulsion by way of ad-interim order. However,
we consider it a fit case to fix a date for final hearing. Stay of expulsion will
amount to grant of final relief, without hearing the other side.
11. Apart from expulsion and consequential decision of taking
steps to have the seat declared vacant and fresh elections conducted, the
resolution also envisages direction to register FIR and to have custodial
interrogation. Since FIR is reported to have already been registered, stay
has been pressed qua direction for custodial interrogation.
12. It is submitted that even if the House may be at liberty to
follow such procedure as it may deem appropriate for getting any report or
information, conduct of investigation by any Investigating Officer after
registration of FIR is a matter which is laid down in statutory law i.e. the
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. Without amendment of such law, a
contrary direction to an Investigating Officer cannot be given. The
Investigating Officer may be entitled to take an accused in custody for
investigation but whether custodial interrogation is necessary or not, is a
matter within his purview to decide, subject to other relevant legal
provisions.
13. We are, prima facie, of the view that resolution of the
Assembly about need for custodial interrogation cannot be treated to be
binding. Accordingly, by way of interim order, we direct that there will be
stay of direction that it is essential to have custodial interrogation. We,
CWP No.16216 of 2008 7
however, make it clear that this interim order does not prevent the
Investigating Officer to conduct custodial interrogation in accordance with
law, if considered otherwise necessary.
14. We make it clear that any observation made hereinabove will
not be treated as binding at the time of final hearing.
15. The petition is admitted to DB.
16. We do not consider it necessary at this stage to issue notice to
respondent No.1 to 3. Notice may be issued to respondent No.4 – Punjab
Vidhan Sabha through its Secretary. Reply may be filed on or before
October 31, 2008. Rejoinder, if any, may be filed on or before November
15, 2008. Any further document or pleading may be filed on or before
November 30, 2008.
List for final hearing on December 01, 2008.
(Adarsh Kumar Goel)
Judge
September 15 , 2008 (Ajay Tewari)
'gs' Judge