'C/é’wgb 0\@ smaLE BENcH IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Writ Petition (Civil) No. I0k% of 2011 PETITIONER: - Versus — 1. Sachchidanand Joshi, S/o Late Shri S.R. Joshi, Aged about 48 years, Occupation: Service, Presently posted as Vice Chancel|or,kKushabhau Thakre Patrakarita Avam Jan Sanchar University, Raipur, R/o Science College Campus, G.E. Road, Raipur (C.G.) Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Through the Secretary, Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog, Gandhi Chowk, Raipur (C.G.) Shailendra Khandelwai, S/o Shri S.S. Khandelwal Aged about 42 years, R/o 7/9 Nehru Nagar (East), Bhilai, Distt. Durg (C.G.) RIT PETITION UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 W HIGH COURT OF CHI-IATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WMT PETITION (C) No. 1028 of 2011 PETITIONER ‘ : Sachchidanand Joshi. VERSUS 1 . 1‘ >Q§§~ RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog & Another. Poét for pronouncement ofjudgnent & order on .i.éay of June, 201 1. Sd/— Satish K. Agnihotri Judge {A HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR WRIT PETITION (C) No. 1028 of 2011 : Sachchidanand Joshi. VERSUS RESPONDENTS : Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog & Another. WRIT PETITON UNDER ARTICLE 226 OF THE CONSTITUTION OF INDIA SB: Hon’ble Shri Satish K. Agnihotri, J. Present: Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, Shri Ashish Shrivastava and Shri Malay Shrivastava, Advocates for the petitioner. Shri Sumesh Baj aj, Advocate for the respondent No. 1. Shri C.J.K.Rao, Advocate for the respondent No. 2. (Delivered on ..-?.7..f£1ay of June, 201 1) 1. Challenge in this petition is to the communication dated 29.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) issued by the respondent No. 1 whereby the application dated 27.01.2011 (Annexure P/12) of the petitioner seeking, exemption nom personal K appearance before the Lok Aayog, was rejected and the petitioner was directed under the provisions of section 10(2)(a) and (b) of the Chhattisgarh Lok Aayog Adhiniyam, 2002 (for short ‘the Adhinzy'am, 2002 ’) to appear before the Lok Aayog on 24.02.201 1, alongwith concerned documents to make statement on oath for the purpose of preliminary enquiry. 2. The facts, in nutshell, are that the petitioner, being the Vice Chancellor of Kushabhau Thakre Patrakarita Evam Jan O \(9 Sanchar University, Raipur (for short ‘the University’) was required to appear in person and make statement on oath under the provisions of section 10(2)(a) of the Adhiniyam, 2002 on a complaint made by the respondent No. 2, wherein the allegation was that in the selection process for the appointment on the post of Professor, Reader and Lecturer for various subjects viz. subjects of Journalism, Mass Communication, Electronic Media, Advertising and Public Relation, there was several irregularities leading to u awarding more marks to incompetent 'persons. The respondent No. 2 complained that he‘could not be selected on account of malafide exercise by the officers in the selection. The petitioner has challenged the impugned communication dated 29.01.2011 (Annexure P/l) basically on the ground that summoning the petitioner for making statement on oath is violative of the mndamental rights guaranteed under Article 20(3) in Part III of the Constitution oflndia. Secondly, the respondent No. 1 has no jurisdiction to call the petitioner for examination on oath as this is contrary to the requirement under section 7(4) of the Adhiniyam, 2002. Thirdly, the High Court has already considered the grievance of the respondent No. 2 in one petition filed by the respondent No. 2 and the second petition filed by him is pending consideration. Thus, having deference to the orders passed by the Constitutional Court in exercise of its power under Article 226, the the complaint ,\(o\ of the respondent No. 2 could not have been entertained by the respondent No. l. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner, during the course of argument submitted that the petitioner does not want to press the ground that petitioner cannot be called for adducing statement on oath. It was further stated that the petitioner was ready and willing to appear before the respondent No. 1 alongwith all the concerned documents to make statement on oath. Thus, the u main issue, asto whether the Lok Aayog has jurisdiction to summon the petitioner to make statement on oath and produce all the relevant document, does not survive for consideration in this petition. The next contention of Shri Shrivastava was that this Court, in W.P.(S) No. 1976/2009 and subsequently in W.P.(S) No. 5286/2009 has already considered the issue. Thus, the Lok Aayog should not go into the legality or validity of the selection process. In support of his contention, he would rely on a decision of the Supreme Court in Basavaz‘ah (Dr. ) v. Dr. H.L.Ramesh & Others] and of this Court in Dr. Kamlesh Mishra v. Guru Ghasidas Vishwavidyalaya, Bilaspur & Othersz. On the other hand, Shri Bajaj, learned counsel appearing for ' the respondent N0. 1 would submit that section 10 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 clearly provides that the Lok Aayog may 1 (2010) 8 SCC 372 2 2006(1) CGLJ 410 \?o require any public servant or any other person who in its opinion is able to furnish information or produce documents relevant to the inquiry, to furnish such information or to produce in any such inquiry, fOr the purpose of inquiry under this Adhiniyam, including a preliminary inquiry. Sub- section (2) of Section 10 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 further provides that for the purpose of any such inquiry including 7‘? i preliminary enquiry, the Lok Aayog shall have all the powers of a civil court in respect of summoning and h enforcing the attendance of any person and examining him on oath, requiring the discovery and production of any document etc. Thus, there is no irregularity or illegality in I the issue. 6. Shri Bajaj would further submit that sub-section (4) of Section 7 of the Adhiniyam, 2002 makes it clear that the Lok Aayog should not entertain any administrative action involving exercise of discretion except where it is satisfied that the elements involved in the exercise of the discretion are absent to such an extent that the discretion cannot be regarded as having been properly exercised and there was malafide exercise of powers. Thus, there was no protection under section 7(4) of the Adhiniyarn, 2002 available to the petitioner in the enquiry. 7. > Heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, perused the \\ pleadings and documents appended thereto. (7 \(o 7 5 8. So far as the main question with regard to appearance of petitioner before the Lok Aayog with all the relevant document and further making statement on oath is concerned, the same does not require any adjudication in view of the fact that the petitioner has already given up the issue orally supported by the written submission. The petitioner has willingly offered to appear before the Lok l i Aayog with all the relevant documents, on any other date p, fixed, and shall make statement on oath as required under b the provisions of the Adhiniyam, 2002. Thus, no adjudication is necessary. 9. In regard to the second challenge, the respondent No. 2 has approached this Court in W.P.(S) No. 1976/2009 praying that the entire records with regard to selection of the persons to the four posts of Reader and four posts of Lecturer in the University be summoned, secondly, the authorities may be directed to correct the internal distribution of marks of the petitioner and issue a fresh select list for the post of Lecturer/Reader and thirdly, to decide his representation in accordance with law. At the time of hearing of W.P.(S) No. 1976/2009, the respondent No. 2 (petitioner therein) did not press other reliefs except that his representation be decided, which was ordered on 04.05.2009 (Annexure P/3). Thereafter, the respondent No. 2 preferred another petition being W.P.(S) No. 5286/2009, reiterating the same prayer as \\ sought for in the earlier writ petition, and in addition, Amit \yf\ prayed quashing of the 'order dated 10.06.2009 (Annexure P/4) passed by the University on his representation dated 03.03.2009, which appears, is pending consideration. In both the above writ petitions, the issue before this Court was not the with regard to irregularity, illegality or malaflde exercise ofpower involving misconduct. Thus, the office of the Lok Aayog was fully competent to go into the allegations of misconduct. There is no dispute that the - orders passed by the Constitutional Court in exercise of its i power under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, is binding on all the authorities. There is no material to show that any decision has been taken by the Lok Aayog contrary t0 the orders passed by this Court. Thus, there is no reason to go into this issue at this stage. 10. Reliance of Shri Shrivastava on a decision of the Supreme Court in Basavaz'ah (Dr. ) (supra) and of this Court in Dr. Kamlesh Mishra (supra) are not relevant to the dispute involved herein as the issue involved in the above stated cases were that whether the Courts may go into the recommendation made by the experts when no malatide have been alleged. 11. In View of the foregoing and for the reasons stated hereinabove, the petition is dismissed. 12. e No order asto costs. Satish K. Agnihotri Judge m Sd/- .