VASSUDEV TAMBA Vs. S T PUTTARAJU

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE petitioner and his two brothers, Shripad and Raghurai Tamba, jointly own certain property in the State of Goa. On 3rd November, 1998, Shripad and Raghurai applied to the North Goa Planning and Development Authority (hereinafter referred to as "the NGPDA" for short), for permission to develop and extend their house in a commercial town. It appears that on 9th November, 1998, the two brothers informed the NGPDA that the extension sought was temporary and they would not claim any equities and coverage based on the permission that may be granted to them. Permission was thereafter granted to the two brothers to extend their premises on 19th November, 1998. On 8th April, 1999, the petitioner lodged a complaint under the Goa Public Men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act, 1988, (hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988" for brevity's sake), alleging that the respondent no. 1 who was then the Secretary of the Planning Authority had prevailed upon the Planning Authority in utter violation of the Town Planning Act, to grant permission to Shripad and Raghurai to construct an extension to their house. According to the petitioner, respondent no. 1 was guilty of favouritism and nepotism which are acts of corruption under the Act of 1988. A preliminary investigation was conducted and on lst July, 1999, the Commission constituted under the Act of 1988 felt that a prima facie case exists against respondent no. 1 and, therefore, decided that a detailed investigation was necessary. Accordingly, the Commission heard the matter in detail and decided the charges levelled against the respondent no. 1. On 12th January, 2000, the Commission, which consists of the Chairman and two more members, by a majority decided that the allegations contained in the complaint were not substantiated and, therefore, the case was closed. However, there was a dissenting note by the Chairman of the Commission. The petitioner sought a review of the decision of the Commission on 17th February, 2000. The Commission declined to review its order as a review was not maintainable under the Act. Aggrieved by the orders of the Commission, the petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution of India.

(2.) THE main contention of the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner is that the findings of the Commission are perverse because of its faulty approach and bad logic and misdirection in law. The learned counsel submits that the first respondent misled the Planning Authority to believe that the permission sought by Shripad and Raghurai was temporary. According to the learned counsel, the first respondent who was the Municipal Secretary, misled the Planning Authority to believe that the representation made by him in respect of the permission was correct. The approach of the two members who had absolved the first respondent of all the charges, according to the learned counsel for the petitioner, is cavalier and, therefore, is required to be set aside. He submits that there is no doubt that the first respondent is guilty of corruption as he had wilfully intended to show undue favour in respect of Shripad and Raghurai. The learned counsel then submits that the findings in the majority decision are perverse and the approach which ought to have been adopted was the approach of the Chairman of the Commission and he, therefore, submits that the findings of the Commission be set aside with a direction to the competent authority to take action as respondent no. 1 is guilty of corruption under Section 3 (d) of the Act of 1988.

(3.) THE learned Advocate General appearing for the State produced a Notification dated 16th November, 2003, and submitted that the Government had decided to wind up the Commission in the State and to establish the institution of Lokayukta. He submits that in view of this even if this Court comes to the conclusion that the Commission needs to reappreciate the evidence before it, the matter should not be remanded.