Himachal HC imposes penalty for delay in RERA appointment
SHIMLA
: 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
The Hindu
39 minutes ago
- The Hindu
Bombay High Court questions legal basis of stipend for junior lawyers
The Bombay High Court on Wednesday (June 25, 2025) raised questions over whether junior lawyers in Maharashtra have a statutory right to receive a monthly stipend, even as it expressed sympathy for their financial struggles. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Alok Aradhe and Justice Sandeep Marne was hearing a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by twelve junior advocates from Maharashtra seeking a monthly stipend of ₹5,000 for junior lawyers with less than three years of practice and an annual income under ₹1 lakh. While acknowledging the financial hardship faced by junior lawyers, the Court questioned the legal basis for mandating a stipend. 'What is the statutory right? On a personal level, we support you. We agree with you. But principally, who will give this? Bar Council has no funds. Will you give any funds?' Chief Justice Aradhe asked. He further queried whether the demand served a broader public interest: 'There is no element of public interest in this. How is society in general concerned with stipend to young lawyers?' The petitioners, represented by advocates Ajit Deshpande and Akshay Desai, argued that the stipend would provide crucial financial assistance during the formative years of legal practice, particularly for those affected by the COVID-19 pandemic. They cited similar stipend schemes implemented in other states including Delhi, Tamil Nadu, Kerala, Jharkhand, and Andhra Pradesh, and pointed to a Bar Council of India (BCI) recommendation for stipends of ₹15,000 in rural areas and ₹20,000 in urban regions. When the petitioners pointed out that the Delhi High Court had already passed directions in this regard, Chief Justice Aradhe replied, 'Why just ₹15,000? We believe that in cities like Mumbai, ₹45,000 should be paid. But where will the funds come from?' The Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa (BCMG), in its response, stated that implementing the scheme would cost approximately ₹155 crore annually — an amount it claimed it cannot afford without state support. The BCMG counsel said, 'Certain states that have these schemes are aided. We can't do that in Maharashtra. We had sent a representation.' The Court adjourned the matter for two weeks and directed the parties to return with clarity on whether any statutory provision requires such financial aid for junior lawyers. The petition also proposes that the Maharashtra Advocates Welfare Fund be used to finance the scheme. Filed in 2022, the petition argues for the creation of a permanent stipend scheme to support young advocates through the early, financially unstable years of legal practice. The petition said, 'A survey conducted by Vidhi Centre for Legal Policy claims that more than 79% of surveyed lawyers across 7 High Courts said that advocates with less than 2 years of legal practice at the Bar earn less than ₹10,000 a month. The survey also showed the disparity in incomes of senior advocates and the entrance of the profession. This reflects the need of the hour to support young lawyers who have not been in a position to sustain themselves.' It also said that the State Government of Maharashtra has not taken any steps to economically support the new lawyers and to give economic aid to the Bar Council of Maharashtra and Goa. 'On March 24, 2020, the Bar Council of India appealed to Prime Minister Narendra Modi to provide ₹20,000 as a minimum subsistence allowance per month to lawyers who are not financially well off so that they can support their families following the lockdown. But unfortunately, no economic support has been provided by the Central Government,' the petition said.
India Gazette
an hour ago
- India Gazette
CBI arrests one accused in 5.6 lakh bank fraud case from 1978
New Delhi [India], June 25 (ANI): Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) arrested Satish Kumar Anand, a Proclaimed Offender (PO) in a case relating to bank fraud of Rs 5,69,000 of Bank of India. CBI had registered the case on May 5, 1978 against the three accused, including the then Bank Branch Manager, Satish Kumar Anand and Ashok Kumar on the allegations that the accused then Bank Branch Manager while posted and functioning as Branch Manager during 1977 entered into criminal conspiracy with Satish Kumar Anand to cheat the Bank, according to the probe agency. According to CBI, the said Bank Branch Manager advanced loan to a private company on the forged receipt submitted along with the bills by falsely showing dispatching of consignment, and due to this wrongful loss to the bank and pecuniary gain to the tune of Rs 5,69,000 was caused to accused Satish Kumar Anand. After investigation, CBI had filed the charge sheet against all the three accused persons - the then Bank Branch Manager, Satish Kumar Anand and Ashok Kumar in the Ld. Court of Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun. The accused Satish Kumar Anand and Ashok Kumar were convicted by Ld. Special Judge, CBI, Dehradun vide judgement dated June 19, 1985 and awarded Imprisonment (RI) of 05 Years and fine of Rs.15,000. The accused then Bank Branch Manager was acquitted. After conviction, the accused Satish Kumar Anand absconded. The Ld. Court of Special Judge, CBI, Anti-Corruption, Dehradun declared absconding Satish Kumar Anand as Proclaimed Offender vide the order dated November, 30, 2009, the probe agency said. (ANI)
Time of India
an hour ago
- Time of India
7L theft probe throws up 39L cash; not ours, say complainant & accused
Mumbai: Whose money is it anyway? The Antop Hill police were left to grapple with this question recently after two neighbours — both GST officials — denied that unaccounted cash, seized from the house of one of them, was theirs and instead pointed accusing fingers at each other. The official in whose house Rs 39 lakh in cash was found said all of it belonged to the other official, who had complained to the cops that Rs 6.9 lakh in cash and valuables had gone missing from his house. The complainant denied it was his. Both have ended up courting trouble — one booked and arrested for theft from his neighbour, while the original complainant is now under CBI scanner for a bigger offence: disproportionate assets beyond his known sources of income. After investigation, the police have filed a 50-page chargesheet saying the money belonged to the complainant, said an officer. You Can Also Check: Mumbai AQI | Weather in Mumbai | Bank Holidays in Mumbai | Public Holidays in Mumbai Umesh Narayan, a superintendent with GST department, lodged a complaint on June 10 stating someone had burgled his flat and stolen valuables — cash, gold jewellery, and a laptop – collectively valued at Rs 6.9 lakh. There was no forced entry, a sign a duplicate key had been used. Suspicion soon fell on his colleague, Deepak Dahiya, who stayed on the same floor; he had been given a spare key to Narayan's flat. CCTV footage and mobile call detail records showed no other person entering the building that day apart from Dahiya, who had travelled to work with Narayan in the morning. Antop Hill police questioned Dahiya, who eventually confessed to the crime. However, during a search of his residence, investigators found Rs 39 lakh in cash hidden beneath his bed. Initially, both Narayan and Dahiya denied ownership of the recovered cash, with Dahiya claiming Rs 5 lakh was his personal savings. The remaining Rs 34 lakh, he alleged, belonged to Narayan. But Narayan denied any knowledge of the sum. As both officials came under suspicion and questions were raised about the source of the cash, CBI got wind of the case and its team arrived at Antop Hill police station and took away the FIR and other details. Dahiya was arrested on June 13, was granted bail on June 22 and has been suspended from his position in the GST department. Within 10 days of registering the theft case, the police filed a chargesheet under Sections 305 (a) (theft in a dwelling house) and 331 (3) (house trespass) of the Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita. Sensing greater financial irregularities, the police recorded a supplementary statement from Narayan, who ultimately admitted that the Rs 34 lakh belonged to him. This admission was included in the 50-page chargesheet they have submitted to court, said an officer. The chargesheet stating the money belonged to Narayan has triggered a probe by CBI's anti-corruption branch into Narayan's finances to determine if he is in possession of disproportionate assets. Investigators believe Narayan may have initially attempted to cover up the existence of unaccounted cash by falsely reporting a theft involving his wife's jewellery. And where's the Rs 39 lakh cash both officials claimed belonged to the other? It has been deposited in the treasury.
