HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ANR. versus STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.

Citation: [2018] 13 S.C.R. 868 · Decided: 02-11-2018 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: A.K. SIKRI · Disposal: Disposed off

cites 14 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
868
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2018] 13  S.C.R.
HIMACHAL PRADESH CRICKET ASSOCIATION & ANR.
v.
STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH & ORS.
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1258-1259 of  2018)
NOVEMBER 02, 2018
[A. K. SIKRI AND ASHOK BHUSHAN, JJ.]
Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: s.482 – Quashing of FIRs
– In the instant case, lease of land was granted by the Government
to the appellant no.1 for construction of world class cricket stadium
– Additional land was allotted to appellant by Gram Panchayat – A
club house was constructed on the part of the infrastructure of the
allotted land – Another land was allotted for using commercially
and a hotel was constructed on it – Appellant no1 was initially
registered as a society which was later converted to a company –
Two FIRs against appellants and some other persons alleging illegal
grant of lease of land to appellant no.1 – One under ss.406, 420,
120B IPC and s.13(2) of POC Act and another under s.447 r/w
s.120B, s.3 of PDPP Act,1984 and s.13(2) of POC Act – High Court
dismissed the petition for quashing of FIRs by brushing aside the
argument of appellants that it was a case of vengeance, political
vendeta and mala fide – On appeal, held:  No criminal case was
made out against the appellants, particularly when all the concerned
officers, who took the decision in grant of lease of land were let off
on the ground that they had not committed any wrong – High
Government Officials who were involved in lease grant were not
charged or proceeded for want of prosecution – Two senior officials
who took active part in decision making in lease grant were made
Principal Secretary and Advisor to CM respectively – Even as per
prosecution, there was no criminal act on part of the officers as
they had performed their appropriate administrative duties – Insofar
as conversion of Society into not for profit company under s.25 of
the Companies Act, 1956 was concerned, it was done as per the
mandate of BCCI – There was no element of criminality therein – In
the proceedings filed by the appellants under s.482, respondent
No.2 (CM) was impleaded, as the allegations of mala fides were
attributed to him – Since, no case of cheating/fraud or criminal
868
[2018] 13  S.C.R. 868
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
869
breach of trust was made out, respondent No.2 did not have much
role to play in these proceedings – Having regard to the stand taken
by respondent No.1 not to prosecute these cases, even otherwise,
no purpose would be served in continuing with these proceedings –
FIRs accordingly quashed – Penal Code, 1860 –   ss.406, 420,
120B, s.447 r/w s.120B – Prevention of Corruption Act – s.13(2) –
Prevention of Damage to Public Property Act,1984 – s.3 – Himachal
Pradesh Lease Rules, 1993 – r.8.
Disposing of the appeals and the writ petition, the Court
HELD: 1. Appellant No.1 was given lease of land on which
cricket stadium was constructed and thereafter lease for
additional land meant for club house and also supplementary lease
for commercial activity i.e. the hotel.  It is only in respect of the
land which is meant for cricket stadium that rental of Re.1/- per
month was agreed to be charged by invoking proviso to Rule 8 of
the H.P. Lease Rules, 1993.  Thus, it was not contrary to law.
State of Himachal did not have any cricket ground, much less
State of art cricket ground.  It was, for this reason, that the land
was given on lease for the purpose of constructing the cricket
ground, which may become pride of Himachal Pradesh, at nominal
rental.  Insofar as lease in respect of club house and supplementary
lease for commercial activity (i.e. hotel) was concerned, the lease
money was fixed in accordance with Lease Rules, 2011, namely,
at commercial rates.  There can hardly be any element of
criminality in these allotments inasmuch as six very senior officers
in the State Government (four of them of IAS Cadre and one
belonged to Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service) who had
examined the matter and only after their approval, the allotments
were made.  There was no culpability attributed to them, which is
a very crucial factor.  [Paras 37][901-G-H; 902-A-C]
2. In the two FIRs, seven IAS Officers, one Officer
belonging to Himachal Pradesh Administrative Service and one
Executive Engineer, Dharamshala Division in Himachal Pradesh
PWD Department played their significant role at one stage or
the other.  Insofar as the Director-cum-Special Secretary, Youth
Services and Sports Department was concerned, allegation against
him was that h

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.