JAI PRAKASH ASSOCIATESLTD Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) WE have heard Sri Rakesh Dwivedi, senior advocate assisted by Sri V.K. Upadhyay and Sri Devendra Kumar Arora, advocates for the petitioner and Sri Sudhir Chandra, senior advocate assisted by learned standing counsel appearing for the respondents.

(2.) BY this writ petition the petitioner has prayed for quashing the notification dated 26.9.2003 appointing Single Member Commission of Inquiry. Another prayer which was subsequently added is to quash the decision of the State Government as contained in letter dated 25.1.2004 Annexure -16 to the Writ petition issued by Sri Ravinder Singh. Secretary, Handloom and Environment, U.P. Government by which Shri Vijay Shanker Mathur was communicated about his appointment for submitting a report regarding prima facie irregularities found with regard to NOIDA, GREATER NOIDA, Taj Express Way project. It has further been prayed that entire proceedings and report of the Inquiry Commission be quashed.

(3.) THE Inquiry Commission commenced its proceedings on 1st October, 2003 by calling upon the State Government as well as the Taj Express authority to produce entire documents/records relating to the project. The Commission also issued a general notice dated 7.10.2003 calling the public in general to give information and materials to the Commission by an affidavit till 15th October, 2003. The general notice was published in various newspapers on 8th October. 2003. Notice was also issued to the petitioner dated 6.11.2003 calling upon the petitioner to place its stand on 12.11.2003 with regard to subject matter of the enquiry. On 12.11.2003 the petitioner's representative appeared and gave an application dated 12.11.2003 that unless specific query is given on which petitioner, was required to reply, it is difficult to place any stand. The petitioner also mentioned in the letter that the Writ Petition No. 5133 M/B of 2003 filed by the petitioner challenging the Government notification dated 26.11.2003 is pending before the Allahabad High Court. 15th November, 2003 was fixed for placing the stand of the petitioner. The Secretary of the Commission vide letter dated 12.11.2003 informed that the main question relating to contract settlement of Taj Express way project will be relating to concession agreement and Bid document. On 13.11.2003 an application was given by the petitioner's representative praying that time is too short therefore, date may kindly be fixed after seven days. Another application dated 14.11.2003, was given personally by the representative of the petitioner on 15.11.2003 praying, that further proceedings be adjourned for 15 days. It was also requested that specific query may kindly be issued to the petitioner so that the petitioner can submit reply. On 15.11.2003 the Commission passed an order refusing to allow the prayer for granting fifteen days' time. It was observed in the order that it is open to the petitioner to avail the opportunity already granted while proceedings are still continuing. It is also relevant to note that on 13.11.2003 the application was filed by the petitioner in the present writ petition praying that further proceedings before the Single Member Commission of Inquiry be stayed. The application was taken by us on 14.11.2003 on which day request was made on behalf of the State for adjournment. Accordingly the matter was fixed for 18.11.2003. On 18.11.2003 again request was made on behalf of the Advocate General and the matter was again fixed for 20.11.2003. On 20th November, 2003 both the parties were heard at length on the application for staying the proceedings before the Commissioner by us and after completion of hearing we fixed next day, i.e., 21.11.2003 for delivery of orders. On 21st November, 2003 we disposed of the interim application directing that the Single Member Commission of Inquiry appointed by the notification dated 26.11.2003 may proceed with the enquiry but the report be not submitted until further orders of this Court. On 21st November, 2003 itself the Commission's report is said to have been submitted to the State Government. On 8th December, 2003 learned Advocate General appearing on behalf of the State respondents filed report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry in a sealed cover which was directed to be kept on record in the custody of the Registrar General. Notices were also issued to the respondent No. 2 by this Court which was duly served. Learned chief standing counsel has filed counter -affidavit also on behalf of the respondent No. 2 to which rejoinder - affidavit has also been filed.