Read Time: 08 minutes

Synopsis

The Madhya Pradesh High Court, recently, upheld the show cause notice issued against actor Randeep Hooda concerning alleged illegal construction. This decision came amid controversy over Hooda's land near Kanha National Park. 

Justice Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, of Jabalpur Bench, refused to adjudicate upon the issue of whether there was any construction ongoing on his land. 

Hooda filed a petition seeking to annul the showcause passed by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue). The notice directed Hooda to cease the construction work immediately, alleging it to be an illegal construction without obtaining the required clearances from various departments 

Advocate Siddharth Sharma, representing Hodda, submitted that since Hooda is a film actor, the proceedings were initiated to gain cheap popularity. Additionally, Advocate Sharma contended that the inquiry report, on which the impugned show cause notice was based, were not provided to him. Advocate Sharma asserted that no construction had occurred on his land and that he was not involved in any construction activities as alleged by the SDO (Revenue). 

Advocate Mohan Sausarkar, representing the State, reiterated that a writ petition against a show cause notice is not maintainable, citing the judgment of the Supreme Court in Union of India and v Kunisetty Satyanarayana, [(2006) 12 SCC 28]. Advocate Sausarkar argued that the petition was premature, as no adverse order was issued against Hooda and he was already allowed to present his case. Advocate Sausarkar further contended that Hooda’s claim that the show cause notice was issued to gain cheap popularity was unfounded, and assured that any action taken was strictly following the law, free from extraneous considerations.

The court rejected Hooda’s assertions that the directive to halt construction constituted a final order. The court noted that the SDO had issued a temporary injunction order against six individuals, including Hooda, based on the Committee's report. Therefore, the show cause notice could not be considered a decision on the merits of the case.

The court further observed that the notice indicated that Hooda was given an opportunity to present his case. Furthermore, the court noted that Hooda responded by asserting that he had not engaged in any construction and committed to obtaining all required permissions or clearances from relevant departments before undertaking any future construction.

Consequently, the court passed the following directions: 
“(i) In case if petitioner files an application for supply of copy of enquiry report submitted by enquiry Committee, then the same shall be supplied to the petitioner within a period of three days from the date of filing of such application.
(ii) If an application is filed by petitioner for spot inspection in the presence of petitioner, then the same shall be carried out by the Competent Authority.
(iii) While deciding the application for spot inspection, the Authority shall also fix the date and shall not leave to the discretion of the Authority carrying out the spot inspection. The date so fixed by SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat shall be binding on all the Authorities as well as petitioner and in case if petitioner or his authorized person fails to participate in the spot inspection, then petitioner shall not have any right to claim that the spot inspection was carried out in absence of him or his authorized person.
(iv) If petitioner has any objection to the spot inspection, then he shall file it before SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat within a period of three days from the spot inspection.
(v) The SDO (Revenue), Baihar, District Balaghat shall decide the show cause notice after hearing the petitioner within a period of 15 days from the date of filing of spot inspection report”. 

Accordingly, the court disposed of the petition. 

Case Title: Randeep Hooda v The State Of Madhya Pradesh And Others