BHUPINDER SINGH CHAUDHRY Vs. LT GOVERNOR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CONCEPT of "consultation" and essentials of "effective consultation" in the context of sanction for prosecution under Section 19(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 197 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 given by the Lt. Governor of Delhi for the prosecution of a member of the Delhi Higher Judicial Service purportedly in consultation with the High Court of Delhi arise for consideration and form subject matter of decision in the present case. We quote the observations made by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the recent decision in U.P. Judicial Officers Association's case (Writ Petition Crl. 404 of 1993 decided on 7.3.94) as a prologue to this judgment. Judicial independence in relation to the judicial service has to be ensured and protected. Member of the judicial services should not work under apprehensions of retaliatory actions by the police and the executive "whatever form such action might assume".

(2.) THE petitioner joined Delhi Higher Judicial Service as a direct recruit in the year 1982. In the year 1986, as permitted by the prevalent practice in the union capital territory of Delhi, the petitioner was sent on deputation as Secretary (Law and Judicial) to the Delhi Administration. The petitioner was also required to function as Secretary of Metropolitan Council, Delhi. In the year 1988, he was also appointed as the Administrator -General for the Union Territory of Delhi under Section 3 of the Administrator -General Act, 1963. In his capacity as the Administrator -General, the petitioner was also assigned with judicial functions such as to grant certificates of succession of the properties having value less than Rs. 50,000/ -. He was also carrying out the orders and directions of the High Court. One Kasim Ali Khan was appointed as the Deputy Administrator General to aid and assist the petitioner. In his capacity as the Administrator -General, the petitioner took over the charge of the estate of one Smt. Dropdi Devi under orders of the High Court dated 15.2.1973 passed in Probate Case No. 12/71. One of the properties was situated at 110, Darya Ganj, Delhi. The High Court had by its order dated 27.7.89 permitted the Administrator -General to deal with the property/tenants and unauthorised occupants, etc. of the property. On a complaint made, the CBI registered a case bearing RC No. 16(A)/92/DLI dated 31.3.92 against Kasim Ali Khan, Deputy AG OT. With the permission of the High Court, the CBI recorded the statement of the petitioner in connection with investigation of the crime registered by it. After investigation the CBI formed an opinion that the petitioner was also involved in conspiracy for the crime. The gravaman of the charge was that surreptitiously a part of the property was let out to one S. S. Ali Khan on a nominal rent of Rs. 100/ - as against the market rent of Rs. 5,600/ - per month, which similarly situated properties in the area of Darya Ganj were fetching. This S. S. Ali Khan was none else that the son of Kasim Ali Khan Deputy AG OT. The CBI found on investigation the petitioner and Kasim Ali Khan to have abused their position as such public servants and obtained pecuniary advantage by letting out the property at a nominal rent which constituted offences punishable under Section 120B, 409 IPC and Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) ON 19.10.1993, the Lt. Governor of the Govt. of National Capital Territory of Delhi, granted sanction for prosecuting the petitioner. This sanction is under challenge. According to the petitioner, the Lt. Governor did not have effective consultation with the High Court of Delhi before according the sanction and hence the same is vitiated.