SUBHASH G NARUEKAR Vs. STATE OF GOA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) All these petitions can be disposed of by common Judgment since common question of law is involved in all these three petitions.

(2.) The relevant facts in each of the petitions are as under: writ PETITION NO. 116/2001: the petitioner, at the relevant time, was the Chairman of the Mapusa municipal Council. Pursuant to the Judgment dated 8th June, 1999, passed by this Court directing the State of Goa to refer the complaint to the Goa public Men's Corruption (investigation and Inquiries) Commission (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Commission') the Government referred the complaint to the Commission by way of reference under section 9 (2) of the Goa Public men's Corruption (Investigation and Inquiries) Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as 'the Act'). Before the Commission, the petitioner raised several preliminary objections. However, the Commission was pleased to reject the same and directed preliminary investigation. Consequently, preliminary investigation into the matter as per the procedure laid down under the Act was conducted and statements of several persons were recorded. By Order dated 15- 12-1999, the Commission held that, prima facie, it was established that the petitioner had abused his position as Public Man and willfully acted in contravention of the Rules and Regulation and the applicable law in order to favour a contractor and also committed act of favouritism in the discharge of his official functions. The Chairman of the Commission Dr. G. F. Couto, retired on 16-3-2000, and, thereafter, two members, namely Shri C. F. Alvares and Shri G. U. Bhole proceeded with the detailed investigation and examined six witnesses. On 13-9-2000, the said two Members made a Report under section 17 (1) of the Act and made certain recommendations to the Government of Goa. In the said report, the said Members held that the petitioner has abused his position as Public Man willfully in contravention of law and established procedure and that he had shown favour to the contractor and caused deliberate loss to the Municipal fund to the extent of Rs. 6,00,000/- and had committed acts of Corruption envisaged under section 3 (C) and 3 (D) of the Act. The said two Members, inter alia, also recommended to the Government that the said amount of Rs. 6,00,000/- should be recovered from the petitioner. On 10-10-2000, the petition was filed challenging the report and recommendations of the Commission dated 13-9-2000. This Court issued rule on 6-6-2001 and granted interim relief to the petitioner. WRIT PETITION NO. 199/2001 the petitioner was Chairperson of the Mapusa Municipal Council and, as such, a Public Man, at the relevant time. In January, 2001, respondent no. 3 filed complaint before the Commission. At the relevant time, the commission consisted of only two Members, viz Shri C. F. Alvares and Shri G. U. Bhobe. Since the Chairman Dr. G. F. Couto had retired on 16-3-2000, the said two Members held preliminary inquiry in the absence of Chairman Dr. G. F. Couto had retired on 16-3-2000, the said two Members held preliminary inquiry in the absence of Chairman Dr. G. F. Couto, who had retired as Chairman in March, 2000. Thereafter on 28-5-2001, the said two Members passed an order holding that prima facie case was made out against the petitioner and issued summons for appearance on 12-6-2001 for the purpose of detailed inquiry. On 11-6-2001, the petitioner filed the present petition, challenging notice/summons dated 28-5-2001 and seeking quashing of proceedings before the Commission in Case No. 1/2001. This Court granted Rule and an interim relief on 4-7-2001. WRIT PETITION NO. 58/2002. The petitioner was Panchayat Member of the village Panchayat of Curea -Bambolim-Talaulim, at the relevant time and as such, a Public Man under the Act. On 17-12-1997, a complaint was filed by respondent No. 5 to the director of Panchayats alleging acts of corruption by the petitioner during his tenure as Sarpanch of the village Panchayat of Curea-Bambolim-Talaulim. On 2-8-1999, the Director of Panchayats, after conducting preliminary inquiry, referred the matter under sub-section (2) of section 9 to the Commission for further investigation, as the matter involved allegation of corruption against a public Man and on 14-3-2000, the Commission after examining seven witnesses and on going through the audit report and various documents, held that the matter required detailed inquiry and ordered a detailed investigation under section 13 (2) of the Act, the Commission fixed the matter for detailed investigation which was thereafter held. In the course of the detailed investigation, seven witnesses were examined and on 2-4-2001, Mr. C. F. Alvares and Mr. G. U. Bhole, the two Members of the Commission made a report purporting to be under section 17 (1) of the Act and made recommendations in the matter to the Government of Goa. The petition was filed on 11-2-2002, challenging the said report which was admitted and interim relief was granted by this Court on 19-2-2002.

(3.) Since the challenge in all the three petitions is to the report and recommendation of the commission under the Act, it would be appropriate to refer to the object of the Act and the relevant provisions of the Act before dealing with the challenges made in each of the petitions. The Act was enacted to make provision for constitution of Commission for investigation of and inquiry into complaints against public men and for matters connected therewith. The Act was passed by the legislative Assembly of Goa on 28-12-1988 and was assented to by the President on 20-8-1991 and was published in the Official Gazette dated 3-9-1999. However, the Commission contemplated under section 4 of the Act was constituted in January, 1997. The Commission consisted of Dr. G. F. Couto, Retired Judge of Bombay high Court, as Chairman, Shri C. F. Alvares, and Shri G. U. Bhole, as the members. Dr. G. F. Couto retired on 16-3-2000 and, thereafter, the other two members continued to function. On 16-10-2003, by Notification of. the same date, the Government of Goa rescinded Notification dated 9-1-1997, constituting the commission thereby winding up the said Commission. At this stage, it would be appropriate to reproduce section 2 (a) and (b) , and sections 4, 9 and 17 of the Act. They read as under: 2. Definitions.- In this Act, unless the context otherwise requires: (a) "commission" means a Commission constituted under section 4; (b) "complaint" means a complaint alleging that a public man has committed corruption.