Madhya Pradesh High Court refuses to quash notice against Randeep Hooda but passes directions to protect his rights

The Madhya Pradesh High Court on Thursday refused to quash a show cause notice issued against actor Randeep Hooda by the State authorities for alleged illegal construction in land near Kanha National Park [Randeep Hooda v State of Madhya Pradesh and Ors.].However, the Court passed a series of directions to ensure that law is not violated by authorities and that they follow the due process in the proceedings against Hooda. Justice GS Ahluwalia held that Hooda's writ petition against the show cause notice was not maintainable, but noted that Hooda had not been provided with a copy of the inquiry report..Hence, the Court issued the following directions to ensure that the due process is followed:If Hooda applies for a copy of the inquiry report, it must be issued to him in three days.If he requests a spot inspection in his presence, the same must be conducted on a specific date set by the Sub Divisional Officer (SDO) Revenue. If he fails to participate, he cannot claim that the inspection was carried out in his absence.He is allowed to file objections to the spot inspection report within three days of the inspection.The SDO (Revenue) must decide on the show cause notice after hearing Hooda within 15 days of receiving the spot inspection report. .However, the Court clarified that if an application for spot enquiry is not made within 15 days, the observations in the order would lose their effect..On June 18, SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat had issued a notice to Randeep Hooda for alleged unauthorised construction near Kanha National Park.The next day, Hooda appeared before the SDO and was asked to submit documents showing he had requisite permission in order to prevent filing on a first information report (FIR) against him..Hooda moved the High Court seeking quashing of the show cause notice. He alleged that the proceedings were initiated to gain 'cheap popularity'.He informed the Court that he was not supplied a copy of the enquiry report based on which the notice was issued and claimed that he had not constructed on the land at all..On the other hand, counsel for Madhya Pradesh government submitted that a writ petition against a show cause notice is not maintainable given the Supreme Court's decision in Union Of India And Another vs Kunisetty Satyanarayana.He further contended that the petition was premature as Hooda had been given an opportunity to put forward his case..The Court agreed that the writ petition was not maintainable. Further, it observed that the direction to stop construction was not a final order but a temporary injunction order against Hooda and six others. Furthermore, it noted that the actor had been given an opportunity to present his case and had also filed his response. However, noting that Hooda had not been supplied a copy of the inquiry report, the Court issued the directions for due process to be followed. It also allowed Hooda to file a supplementary reply..The Court further clarified that it had not considered the merits of the matter and that the proceedings will be decided by SDO strictly in accordance with evidence which will be filed..Thereafter, the State pointed out that the status of the show cause notice was unclear and that an order may have already been passed by the SDO. The Court took note and observed that if a final order has been passed, the observations would also apply to the appellate authority..Hooda was represented by advocate Siddharth Sharma.The State of Madhya Pradesh was represented by government advocate Mohan Sausarkar. .[Read Order]