ASHOK BHUSHAN, J. - (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. Brief facts necessary for deciding the issues raised in this writ petition are : Writ Petition No. 40074 of 2003, Ashutosh Srivastava v. State of U.P., a Public interest litigation had been filed in this Court alleging that Taj Express Way project has been given by the State Government without following norms. The Division Bench of this Court passed an order on 11.9.2003 on an interim application in the above writ petition appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Varma, a retired Judge of this Court and former Chairman of M.R.T.P. Commission of India to enquire into the alleged scam. The Division Bench of this Court directed that a gazette notification be issued by the State Government under Section 3(1) of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 notifying the appointment of Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Verma as Chairman of the Commission. The State Government filed two applications in the above writ petition on 15.9.2003 praying for staying the effect and operation of the order dated 11th September, 2003 during the pendency of the stay vacation application. The State Government in the said affidavit stated that it is already seized of the matter and an enquiry has already been ordered to enquire various alleged acts of omission and commission and there is no necessity of holding parallel enquiry by the High Court under Section 3 the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952. On considering the aforesaid applications and affidavit of the State Government, the Division Bench of this Court of which one of us (Hon'ble Tarun Chatterjee, C.J.) was a member, vide its order dated 16.9.2003 directed the State Government not to issue any notification appointing an inquiry commission as directed by the interim order dated 11.9.2003 till the decisions are made in two interim applications filed by the State Government. After passing of the order dated 16.9.2003 in the Writ Petition No. 40074 of 2003 the State Government issued the impugned notification dated 26.9.2003 in exercise of its power under Section 3 of the Commissions of Inquiry Act, 1952 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') appointing Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sri Rang Misra, a retired Judge of this Court as Single Member Commission of Inquiry in the matter pertaining to Project Taj Express Way.
(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.;