P&H High Court gives clean chit to former Haryana CM Bhupinder Hooda and AJL in Panchkula land grab case

The Punjab and Haryana High Court on Wednesday set aside criminal charges against Associated Journals Limited (AJL) and former Haryana Chief Minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in a case related to alleged irregularities in re-allotment of an institutional plot to the company in Panchkula [The Associated Journals Limited v Central Bureau of Investigation]

The judgment comes as a major relief to the AJL – which is owned by a company of Congress leaders Sonia Gandhi and Rahul Gandhi, and Hooda, who is the incumbent Leader of Opposition in Haryana.

Justice Tribhuvan Dahiya said that Hooda's 2005 decision to re-allot the plot, which had originally been given to AJL in 1982 for establishment of the office of National Herald and publication of a Hindi newspaper, was unanimously ratified by the Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) ex-post facto in 2006.

It added that no court has declared the decision illegal till date.

"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 Court said.

The Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) had earlier filed a chargesheet under Prevention of Corruption (PC) Act against the AJL, Hooda - who was the Chairman of HUDA, and Congress leader and former Madhya Pradesh Chief Minister Moti Lal Vora, who has since passed away. Subsequently, the trial court framed charges against AJL and Hooda in 2021.

The case was initially registered in 2016 by the Haryana Vigilance Bureau. A Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP) government later transferred the probe to CBI. It was alleged that the plot was re-allotted to AJL at 1982 rates despite the cancellation of the original allotment.

However, the High Court opined that the material brought on record by CBI does not even prima facie disclose the existence of essential ingredients of the alleged offences against them.

"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 ordered.

The Court said Hooda’s decision had not been questioned by anyone, including the State government and HUDA. Even the FIR was registered on the basis of a source, it added.

“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,” the Bench said.

The Court further said that there was no material to establish any agreement between the accused to intentionally cheat HUDA by re-allotting the plot in question. 

“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,” it added.

The Court also found there to be no evidence of AJL asking the re-allotment of the plot at a particular price.

It added that the entire amount of re-allotment as demanded had been duly paid by the AJL, including the extension fee. 

“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 judge said.

The Court noted that the initial allotment to the AJL was at ‘no profit no loss’ basis at the rate of ₹91 per square yard and the objection regarding loss of money to HUDA was dropped by the Deputy Accountant General in 2009.

Therefore, the Court said that there was no material indicating any loss to HUDA, adding that there wasn’t even an assessment in this regard.

“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,” the Court added.

The Court also observed that there was no allegation of illegal gratification to anybody or even Hooda in the entire exercise.

“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,” the judge said.

However, the Court also opined that though Hooda had passed a reasoned order for re-allotment of the plot, he had ignored the legal advice and official notings in the matter. However, the Court said the penal provisions of the PC Act would still not be attracted against him.

"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 judge said.

The Court also said that CBI cannot term the subsequent ratification of Hooda's decision to be inconsequential.

"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," it added.

The Court also rejected the CBI's allegation that the act of mortgaging the AJL building constructed on the plot for taking loans reflected a criminal intention to defraud HUDA. However, the Court noted that it was done with permission of HUDA.

"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," the judge said.

Thus, the High Court concluded that these vital aspects of the case were ignored by the trial judge while framing charges against the accused.

"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," the Court ruled.

Senior Advocate Sartej Singh Narula with Advocates Mayur Singh and Dr Amardeep Singh Sandhu represented the AJL

Senior Advocate RS Cheema with Advocates Sumanjit Kaur, Siddharth Bhukkal, Satish Sharma, Prince Bharol and Vibhuti Manchanda along with Senior Advocate Pardeep Singh Poonia with Advocates Pulkit Dhanda and Dharampal Saini represented Hooda.

Advocate Ravi Kamal Gupta appeared for the CBI.

[Read Judgment]