From Our Correspondent
TURA, July 10: The High Court of Meghalaya on Monday dismissed a petition by former GHADC Secretary, Hewingson Sangma challenging the validity of the order by the Chairperson of the Lokayukta which sought the 11 accused, all former MDCs and officers, to be acted on by the Tura Sessions Court.
Hewingson had filed a petition in the HC seeking a stay on proceedings in the Tura Court over the order quoting the alteration of the Meghalaya Lokayukta Act, 2014 in both 2019 and 2021.
Earlier social activist, Nilberth Ch Marak had approached the Lokayukta Court over various cases of corruption in the GHADC which involved several former MDCs, a few contractors as well the secretary to the GHADC.
Following a lengthy investigation, the Lokayukta deemed the charge-sheet good enough for criminal proceedings to be taken up in the Tura Sessions Court.
“The petition is in desperation and is somewhat akin to the devil citing the scriptures. What has been done by the impugned part of the amending Acts is to have the body called Lokayukta, originally intended to be headed by a Chairperson and consisting of several other members, to be complete upon the Chairperson being appointed,” the division bench of Chief Justice Sanjib Banerjee and Justice Wanlura Diengdoh said. Hewingson had claimed that the two amendments were completely arbitrary and may have taken away rights that may have accrued to the petitioner. He had questioned the order by the Lokayukta as it was only passed by its Chairperson and not by a bench.
“None of the contentions holds any water. The Act of 2014 was not passed under any constitutional provision nor does it refer to any other statute or material in such regard. Lokayukta Acts have been enacted in several States to check the functioning of public servants and take speedy action where some form of wrongdoing is discovered,” it further added.
“The petitioner claims that the original complaint was not directed against the petitioner but, following a preliminary inquiry, a notice was issued on March 14 to which the petitioner responded orally. The immediate challenge is to the propriety of an order dated May 18 which the Lokayukta has required charge-sheets to be filed under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, inter alia, against the petitioner,” it added.
The matter is currently being heard at a special Court in Tura.
The amendments made by the Meghalaya Assembly has allowed for the Lokayukta to be a singly run by the Chairperson in the absence of other members.
“There is no dispute that it was the State Legislature which enacted the original statute in 2014 and such Legislature had due authority to alter or amend the provisions thereof. There was neither any impediment at the initial stage nor at any subsequent stage on the State Assembly to decide on the constitution and composition of the Lokayukta and merely because it had once indicated that the Lokayukta would be a body of persons would not stand in the way of the State Assembly altering its original position to provide for a one-member Lokayukta,” the Court observed.
“A preliminary inquiry was called for by the Lokayukta which resulted in several other names coming up apart from the person or persons originally complained against. At the time of preparing the preliminary report, due notice was issued, in compliance with the principles of natural justice, to the petitioner herein whereupon, the petitioner claims to have made an oral representation after receiving the notice. The best arguable case of the petitioner is that the order passed by the Lokayukta may have been without notice to the petitioner and without affording the petitioner an opportunity of being heard. However, such notice causes no prejudice to the petitioner since the matter has been referred to the special court,” felt the Court.
The Court felt the challenge by the petitioner was a sham for the purpose of stalling the proceedings and dismissed the petition with full prejudice to the petitioner for its consequences.