Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Union Territory Chandigarh vs Arvind Thakur on 14 February, 2014
\214"
ITEM NO.21 COURT NO.5 SECTION IVB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Civil)....../2014
CC 1915-1916/2014
(From the judgement and order dated 16/10/2012 in WP No. 11795/2012 and
order dated 08/11/2013 in CWP No.11795/2012,CM No. 9721/2013 of The HIGH
COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH)
UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH & ANR. Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
ARVIND THAKUR & ANR. Respondent(s)
With IA NO. 1 (Condonation of delay in filing SLP and condonation of delay
in refiling SLP and office report)
WITH SLP(C) NO. 3954 of 2014
[UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH & ANR. V. ARVIND THAKUR & ANR.]
(With prayer for interim relief and office report)
Date: 14/02/2014 These Petitions were called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. PATNAIK
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Siddharth Luthra, ASG.
Ms. Priya Puri, Adv.
Mr. Arjun Dewan, Adv.
For Respondent(s)
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
Heard learned Additional Solicitor General. He submitted that the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors. (2006) 8 SCC 1 itself makes it clear that the Guidelines laid therein are till a law is framed by the Legislature. He submitted that pursuant to the judgment of this Court in Prakash Singh’s case (supra), the Punjab Police Act, 2007 has been made.
He submitted that under Section 54, the Act has been made to the Union Territory of Chandigarh. He submitted that under Section 54 of the aforesaid Act, Police Complaint Authority has been constituted by a Notification dated 26th June, 2010 and in para 3(b)(iv) it has been provided that the recommendation of the Police Complaint Authority shall ordinarily be binding unless for reasons to be recorded in writing the administration decides to disagree with the findings of the Authority. He submitted that the High Court has by the impugned order taken a view that insofar as the aforesaid provision enables the administration to disagree with the finding of the Authority, the provision is contrary to the Guidelines issued in Prakash Singh’s case (supra) were to apply till the Act was made. The said Guidelines were not in force after the Punjab Police Act, 2007 came into force.
We find on a reading of Section 54 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 that it only provided that the State Government by the notification will constitute Police Complaint Authorities at the state level as well as at the district level. Section 54 does not provide for making provision such as the one to which the High Court has found objection that the administration decides to disagree with the findings of the authority. The recommendation of the Police Complaint Authority will not be binding. In our view, if Section 54 of the Punjab Police Act, 2007 was silent at this point the notification should not have empowered the administration to disagree with the findings of the Police Complaint Authority contrary to the guidelines laid down by this Court in Prakash Singh’s case (supra).
With the aforesaid reasons, we dismiss this Special Leave Petition.
| | | | |[KALYANI GUPTA] | |[SHARDA KAPOOR] | |COURT MASTER | |COURT MASTER |