H.C.ARORA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Public Interest Litigation has been preferred by an practicing Advocate of this Court, challenging appointment of Joginder Pal Singh, respondent No.4, as Chairman, Punjab State Warehousing Corporation (hereinafter referred to as "the Corporation") on the ground that his appointment as a Chairman of the Corporation is not in consonance with the statutory rules as he has not been appointed as Director of the Corporation. It is asserted that unless a person is appointed and holding the post of Director, he cannot be appointed as a Chairman as provided in Section 20 of the Warehousing Corporation Act, 1962 (for short, "1962 Act"). Apart from this, it has been submitted that the said respondent is disqualified for appointment to the office of Director as per sub - section (iii) of Section 21 of the 1962 Act, which holds that if a Director is or has been convicted of any offence, involving moral turpitude and sentenced in respect thereof to imprisonment, he will be disqualified for appointment to the post of Director. Respondent No.4 has been convicted under Sections 419 and 471 of IPC and was released on probation. He is facing criminal case registered under Section 2(i), 3,5,8, 21 and 36 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short, "1995 Act") for setting up an unauthorized colony, in which charges have been framed against him on 28.9.2010 in the Court of Additional Chief Judicial Magistrate, Faridkot and the trial is under progress, virtually stating that he is not fit for appointment to a public post.

(2.) IT is the contention of the petitioner that respondent No.4 has been appointed by State of Punjab without taking into consideration the requirement of the statute, which lays down the eligibility of a person for appointment to the post of a Director of the Corporation. The disqualification, as provided in Section 21 of the 1962 Act, for office of the Director of the Corporation has not been taken into consideration, especially sub -section (iii) of the said Section, which provides that a convicted person of any offence, involving moral turpitude, cannot be appointed.

(3.) IT is alleged that the said respondent was elected as a Member of the Legislative Assembly against the Congress ticket. On 26.12.2012, a news report appeared in the Hindustan Times, wherein it was pointed out with regard to the cases in which the said respondent was involved and it was also mentioned that he is likely to change the party to get rid of criminal cases registered against him. Another report appeared in the Hindustan Times dated 27.12.2012, where it was reported that respondent No.4 had joined the Shrimoni Akali Dal (SAD) after resigning from the Congress Party. On 28.12.2012, reports in various newspapers were published to the effect that Chief Minister of Punjab had cleared the file of respondent No.4 for appointment as Chairman of the Corporation and he is likely to join the said post any time. The contention, thus, is that the appointment of Joginder Pal Jain, respondent No.4, as Chairman is on extraneous consideration/grounds other than in public interest or in the interest of the Corporation, which is to be run on sound business principles. In the light of these facts, the petitioner sent a legal notice dated 28.12.2012 to respondent Nos.1 and 2, highlight therein the criminal antecedents of respondent No.4 and calling upon them not to appoint respondent No.4 as the Chairman. However, a newspaper report appeared on 22.1.2013 that respondent No.4 took over charge as Chairman of the Corporation on 1.1.2013. After downloading the affidavits furnished by respondent No.4 before the Returning Officer for election to the Punjab Legislative Assembly held in 2012, the details about the criminal cases in which respondent No.4 was involved, came to the notice of the petitioner and thereafter, making further enquiry into the matter, filed the present writ petition on 15.1.2013, challenging the appointment of respondent No.4 as Chairman of the Corporation.