Dhingra commission: Sibal concludes arguments on ex-cm Hooda’s behalf

CHANDIGARH: Senior advocate and Supreme Court lawyer Kapil Sibal on Tuesday completed arguments on behalf of former Haryana chief minister Bhupinder Singh Hooda in a petition challenging the Haryana government decision to appoint Commission of Inquiry (COI) into alleged lapses in allotment of licences to developers in Gurgaon during the previous government’s tenure.

The Supreme Court on March 13 had set a deadline of two months for the Punjab and Haryana high court to decide Hooda’s plea. The report is yet to be made public. The justice (retd) SN Dhingra panel was set up by Haryana in 2015 to probe the allegations that laws were flouted in granting land licences in Gurgaon during the Congress government’s tenure.

Among the alleged beneficiary companies include one owned by Robert Vadra, son-inlaw of Congress president Sonia Gandhi. The panel submitted its report on August 31, 2016.

In his arguments on Tuesday, Sibal reiterated allegations and questioned the manner in which panel was appointed. Hooda has termed the government move a case of “witchhunt and political vendetta”.

Sibal argued that chief minister Manohar Lal Khattar did not have ‘material’ evidence before him when he decided to order COI probe on May 13, 2015, which, he said, is a prerequisite in ordering such a probe.

Sibal argued that the government took note of a report of Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) in ordering the probe but clarifications to CAG report submitted by the town and country planning department were not taken into consideration.

The one-man panel was asked to probe licences given by the previous Congress government in Haryana for development of colonies, housing societies and commercial complexes in four Guragon villages of Sihi, Shikohpur, Kherki Daula and Sikanderpur Bada. Justice Dhingra had hinted of irregularities in award of licenses. He also stated that Hooda had been commented upon adversely by COI, but was not heard, a mandatory provision.

ON MARCH 13, SC HAD SET A DEADLINE OF TWO MONTHS FOR HIGH COURT TO DECIDE HOODA’S PLEA