Justice SN Dhingra report on babudom 'full of facts'

Justice SN Dhingra, who headed a commission to probe alleged irregularities in land deals including those linked to Robert Vadra during the previous Congress government in Haryana, said his report is "important and full of facts" and highlights the working of bureaucracy. "My entire report is based on documentary evidence," he said, "and not just oral testimonies."

Elaborating on how the report was prepared, the former Delhi High Court judge said it was not difficult to prepare. "I was ordered to head the commission, hence nobody could refuse co-operation. I had access to the documents I wanted while preparing the report," he said.

However, the retired Delhi High Court judge refused to be drawn into the controversy on the findings of a committee comprising three bureaucrats — Krishna Mohan, KK Jalan and Rajan Gupta which was set up by the then Bhupinder Singh Hooda government on October 19, 2012 and had given a clean chit on the land deal connected with Vadra. He suggested that once the report, which was filed in the Supreme Court in April 2017 under a sealed cover, "sees the light of the day, people will come to know how the bureaucracy works."

"There is a delay in making public my report, but the purpose of my inquiry will not be defeated. Whenever, even after 10 years, the report sees the light of the day it will be relevant as my report is one which speaks about the working of the bureaucracy and how people are harassed," he added.

In April, while reserving its judgment in a batch of petitions connected with this matter, the top court bench comprising of justices AK Goel and UU Lalit observed that "the CBI (who is also investigating this issue) may conclude the pending investigation within a period of four months."

In 2015, Justice Dhingra was commissioned to look into the alleged irregularities in land acquisition in Haryana during the previous Congress-led government. The commission also inquired into over 20 properties allegedly associated with Congress leader Sonia Gandhi's son-in-law Robert Vadra and his companies. The commission looked into issues concerning licenses granted for developing commercial colonies by the Department of Town and Country Planning to some entities in Sector 83, Gurgaon including mutation of land deal between Skylight Hospitality and DLF.

The 182-paged report was then submitted by Justice Dhingra before the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP)-led Manohar Lal Khattar's government on August 31, 2016.

Amicus Curiae CA Sundaram who had filed the report had pointed out that "it (report) has not been published on account of a statement made on behalf of the Haryana government in some proceedings pending in the High Court (Punjab and Haryana)."

The top court had then noted that Justice Dhingra's report would have "bearing on present proceedings."

When asked how damaging the report would be for government officials, he confessed, it was a matter the court would have to look into based on the facts in his report.

The committee of bureaucrats, who were allegedly close to Hooda, had justified the land deal concerned by interpreting the provisions of the Consolidation Act 1948. The committee had observed that Khemka's October 15, 2012 order that cancelled the transfer of land was "administratively improper because the then DGCH (Khemka) had already been transferred out on October 11, 2012 and as such an important quasi-judicial order the nature of which has been discussed" should not have been passed by him after his transfer.

Vadra, the Hooda government and all those who seem to be indicted have cried foul on the constitution of the committee and its report. Hooda, the former Haryana Chief Minister had filed a petition in November 2016 in the high court challenging the very constitution of the Dhingra panel, alleging that the government action of ordering the probe was "mala fide" and a result of political vendetta.

Justice Dhingra reiterated what he had already revealed in a press conference, "Had there been no irregularity, I would have given one sentence report mentioning there is no irregularity. My report has 182 pages. Without it (irregularity), I did not have any reason to write 182 pages."

(With inputs from Agencies)