Himachal HC imposes penalty for delay in RERA appointment
: The
Himachal Pradesh High Court
came down heavily on the state government on Friday for its failure to act on two major administrative concerns the delay in appointments to the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) and the controversial six-month extension granted to Chief Secretary
Prabodh Saxena
, despite a pending CBI charge sheet against him.
"The government is playing hide and seek, Himachal High Court remarked as the court pulls up the state for defiance, seeking notification by June 25.
In a strong rebuke during the resumed hearing of a Public Interest Litigation (PIL), the division bench of Chief Justice Gurmeet Singh Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma imposed a penalty (Cost Amount in orders later) on the state government, directing that the amount be deposited with the
Himachal Pradesh
High Court Bar Association by June 25.
"The government is playing hide and seek first, citing the relocation of RERA headquarters to Dharamshala, and now delaying appointments under the pretext of procedural issues," the bench remarked, expressing its frustration with what it termed a deliberate attempt to stall justice.
The court also said that despite a query on May 9 regarding whether the appointments had been notified, the government had taken no concrete action. The bench termed the state's conduct as "administrative apathy" and said the explanation submitted by the government was "unsatisfactory."
The court directed the state to issue the notification for the posts of Chairman and Member of RERA by June 25, warning, "If the notification for appointment of the Chairman and Member is not issued by June 25, it shall be deemed a deliberate obstruction of justice," the Court said.
The state government, during Friday's proceedings, submitted that one member of RERA had been appointed, and the appointments of the Chairman and another member were still under process. The bench rejected this argument, saying that such repeated excuses were unacceptable.
The PIL has been filed by Atul Sharma, who has also challenged the March 28, 2025 order of the state government extending Prabodh Saxena's tenure as Chief Secretary by six months, even though he is an accused in a corruption case being investigated by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
The petitioner informed the court that a CBI chargesheet against Saxena was acknowledged by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Court, Rouse Avenue, New Delhi, on October 21, 2019, and the CBI reaffirmed the pendency of the case in a letter dated January 23, 2025.
Sharma argued that the extension granted to Saxena violates the Central Civil Services Rules and guidelines of the Department of Personnel and Training (DoPT), which do not permit vigilance clearance to officers facing charges under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The PIL noted that Saxena had already been chargesheeted in the infamous INX Media scam, where former Union Finance Minister P. Chidambaram and his son Karti Chidambaram are also named accused. The petition further stated that on September 30, 2022, Saxena was granted an exemption from personal appearance in the case.
Between April 2008 and July 2010, Saxena had served as Director in the Department of Economic Affairs (DEA), which included the Foreign Investment Promotion Board (FIPB) the body responsible for approving Foreign Direct Investment (FDI) proposals during the period in question.
The High Court had earlier, on May 9, sought a detailed affidavit from the state government explaining the "specific reasons" for not notifying the recommendations of the Selection Committee for RERA appointments.
The bench had said, "Keeping in view the larger public interest, if the appointment has not been notified, an affidavit be filed as to why it has not been done and what is the specific reason that the state has withheld the recommendations of the Selection Committee," the court directs.
The court clarified on Friday that interim relief against Saxena's extension will be considered in the next hearing on June 25.
Meanwhile, former Chief Minister and Leader of Opposition Jai Ram Thakur also lashed out at the state government during a press conference in Shimla, saying: "The Himachal Pradesh government stands totally exposed... be it appointments to RERA, the police recruitment scam, or the nursery teacher training selections. Even in the RERA matter, the selection committee sent its recommendation, but the government did not act. Now, the High Court has imposed a Rs 5 lakh cost this has never happened before. The government is answerable to the people for this level of administrative failure."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Time of India
23 minutes ago
- Time of India
PWD corruption case: ‘No proof' against Delhi ex-minister Satyendar Jain; court accepts CBI closure report
NEW DELHI: A Delhi court on Monday accepted the closure report filed by CBI in a case registered against former Delhi minister Satyendar Jain and others over allegations of irregular engagement of professionals in the PWD and payments made from unrelated project funds. The court of special judge Dig Vinay Singh noted that despite several years of investigation, no incriminating evidence was found against anyone to support charges under the Prevention of Corruption (POC) Act, 1988, or any other offence. "When the investigating agency has not found any incriminating evidence over such a long period to prove the commission of any offence, particularly under the POC Act, 1988, further proceedings would serve no useful purpose. Not every decision made in an official capacity-that does not strictly follow rules-warrants invoking the POC Act. There must be at least some material to justify applying the provisions of the POC Act, 1988. Mere neglect of duty or improper exercise of duty alone may not constitute a violation under the POC Act," the judge said. You Can Also Check: Delhi AQI | Weather in Delhi | Bank Holidays in Delhi | Public Holidays in Delhi "It is also worth noting that, even to charge someone, mere suspicion is not enough; at least strong suspicion would be necessary to proceed," the court observed. by Taboola by Taboola Sponsored Links Sponsored Links Promoted Links Promoted Links You May Like Is AI the secret to mastering a new language faster than ever? See why experts are buzzing. Talkpal AI Undo The FIR was registered in 2018 against Jain, who was the then PWD minister, and other PWD officials, based on a complaint from Delhi govt's directorate of vigilance. According to prosecution, Jain and PWD officials irregularly hired a 'creative team' of consultants, breaching recruitment and financial regulations. The court said CBI found no evidence of pecuniary advantage, conspiracy, or corruption, and the protest petition does not provide any sufficient prima facie evidence from investigations or otherwise, warranting further inquiry. "Since the issues relate to administrative decisions without criminal elements, and more than six years have passed, further investigation is unwarranted. CBI requests the protest petition be dismissed and the closure report accepted," the court ruled. The judge said that if any fresh material is received against anyone, CBI would be at liberty to probe the matter further. Other pending cases against Jain include CCTV project corruption case, a money laundering case and disproportionate case. In March 2025, a case was registered against Jain for allegedly accepting a Rs 7 crore bribe to waive off a penalty imposed on Bharat Electronics Ltd for delays in installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. In the money laundering case, he was arrested by ED in May 2022 for alleged money laundering. In Jan 2025, CBI informed a special court that it had secured approval from Delhi LG to prosecute Jain in a disproportionate assets case.
Hindustan Times
40 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
CBI books two, including senior central official, in bribery case
MUMBAI: The Mumbai unit of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) has booked two employees of the department of animal husbandry and dairying, including a deputy commissioner and a guard, for allegedly facilitating the issuance of veterinary certificates to private persons in lieu of bribes, sources in the investigating agency told Hindustan Times. (Shutterstock) Veterinary certificates, which verify the health status of animals, are required for various purposes including movement of animals within the country as well as import/ export of animals and animal products. According to the sources, the alleged irregularities in the department were detected during a joint surprise check at its office in Vashi on July 16-17. The check was conducted following a tip-off about certain officials taking bribes from agents and other related parties to facilitate the issuance of no objection certificates. Subsequently, the CBI registered a case based on a written report about the surprise check from a CBI deputy superintendent of police. 'During the check, we found receipts of payments made via mobile applications on the phone of the guard. He later confessed that the payments were actually bribes and claimed he used to give 50% of the bribe amount to the deputy commissioner, while the remaining money was distributed among a few other employees of the department. The CBI seized the guard's mobile phone and scrutinised transactions made via a payment app which was linked to his bank account. The scrutiny revealed that multiple customs house agents and other private persons were allegedly making payments to him for facilitation of the issuance of veterinary certificates, said the sources. Accordingly, both the accused were booked under sections of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita and Prevention of Corruption Act, for offences spanning criminal conspiracy, bribing of public servants, taking undue advantage to influence public servants by corrupt or illegal means, paying bribe to public servants, bribing a public servant by a commercial organisation, obtaining undue advantage without consideration by public servant and abetment, CBI sources said. 'We are conducting further inquiry into the roles of certain firms whose details were found in the guard's WhatsApp chats, and their representatives who were in touch with him,' said a CBI officer, requesting anonymity. The CBI is also looking into the possible role of other unidentified public servants and private individuals in the case, the officer said.
Hindustan Times
an hour ago
- Hindustan Times
Delhi court disposes of PWD irregularities case against Satyendar Jain
A Delhi court on Monday disposed of a corruption case against former Public Works Department (PWD) minister Satyendar Jain, of the Aam Aadmi Party (AAP), alleging irregularities in hiring a creative team for PWD's infrastructure projects in 2016 and causing a loss to the public exchequer. Satyendar Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹ 7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. Special judge Dig Vinay Singh, accepting the Central Bureau of Investigation's (CBI's) closure report filed in 2022, said, 'When CBI could not find any evidence of criminal conspiracy, abuse of power, pecuniary gain, or wrongful loss to the government exchequer, and the alleged acts are at most administrative irregularities, no offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act or criminal conspiracy is established.' The court noted that despite several years of investigation carried out by the probe agency, no incriminating evidence has been found. 'Not every decision made in an official capacity that does not strictly follow rule warrants invoking the POC (Prevention of Corruption) Act,' the court said. CBI had filed the case against Jain in May 2018, based on a reference from Delhi lieutenant governor, to investigate allegations of irregularities in awarding a tender to a private firm for PWD's infrastructure projects. Senior officials of PWD, including its engineer-in-chief, were also named as accused. According to the FIR, Jain and other PWD officials were accused of irregularities in hiring a 'creative team' of consultants, in breach of recruitment and financial regulations. They were also accused of outsourcing professionals for PWD projects without the finance department's approval. To be sure, Jain is facing two other cases, one pertaining a disproportionate assets case, in which he is accused of amassing assets disproportionate to his known sources of income, up to approximately ₹1.62 crore between 2015 and 2017. Jain was arrested by the Enforcement Directorate in the case in 2022 and granted bail in 2024. Jain is also facing an Anti-Corruption Bureau (ACB) probe over an alleged ₹7 crore bribe from a company tasked with installing CCTV cameras in Delhi. Both cases are at the Rouse Avenue Court and charges have not been framed in either. Following the verdict, AAP chief Arvind Kejriwal posted on X in Hindi: 'All the cases filed against 'you' leaders are false. With time, the truth will come out in all cases. We were sent to jail by filing false cases against us. Shouldn't all those who filed these false cases and the leaders at whose behest these false cases were filed be sent to jail?Whenever they wanted... they sent us to jail, and whenever they felt like it, they filed a 'closure report'? Is this justice?' The BJP did not respond to requests for comment on the matter. In its closure report in the PWD case, the CBI said that it found no criminality or evidence of personal gain, bribery or any criminal intent or violation of financial rules. On the hiring process, the CBI concluded that there was no irregularity in the selection process and the same was based on merit and qualification. Meanwhile, on the financial aspect, the agency found no irregularity of illicit gain to any of the accused, stating that the expenditure for the project was well within the threshold delegated to the PWD, and there was no mandatory requirement to consult the finance department. 'The hiring of professionals was necessary due to urgent departmental needs. A transparent recruitment process was followed through a competitive method, and no payments were made beyond prescribed norms and approved limits. Emoluments were neither excessive nor irregular,' the CBI said. A protest petition was moved by the Directorate of Vigilance of the Delhi government in 2022, challenging the report's findings, alleging that the CBI carried out a 'biased' probe, ignoring documentary evidence and relying solely on witness statements. Rejecting the protest plea, the court on Monday stated that the law clearly stated that suspicion cannot replace proof and even to charge someone, a strong suspicion was needed to proceed. 'The precedents relied upon by the complainant are distinguishable on the facts and do not help in the facts of the present case,' the court said.
