Ram Kishan Fauji Vs State of Haryana and Ors. (Supreme Court of India)
The Supreme Court examined whether a Letters Patent Appeal (LPA) was maintainable against an order passed by a Single Judge of the Punjab and Haryana High Court quashing the recommendations of the Haryana Lokayukta and the consequential FIR registered under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The dispute originated from allegations of bribery relating to the grant of Change of Land Use (CLU) permissions and licences. Following a reference by the Chief Secretary under Section 8(1) of the Haryana Lokayukta Act, 2002, the Lokayukta considered material including recordings of an alleged sting operation and recommended registration of an FIR. The appellant, Ram Kishan Fauji, challenged the recommendations, questioning the authenticity of the electronic recordings. By judgment dated 27 February 2015, the Single Judge found serious deficiencies in the material relied upon, quashed the Lokayukta’s recommendations and the consequential FIR, but permitted investigation based on any other material or information available in accordance with law.
The State challenged the Single Judge’s judgment through LPA No. 1426 of 2015. The Division Bench stayed the judgment and subsequently, by order dated 12 May 2016, directed reconstitution of a Special Investigation Team comprising three senior IPS officers originally belonging to States other than Haryana. Before the Supreme Court, the appellant contended that the Letters Patent Appeal was not maintainable because the Single Judge had exercised criminal jurisdiction, which was expressly excluded from intra-court appellate jurisdiction under Clause 10 of the Letters Patent. The State argued that the proceedings were civil in nature because the writ petition sought certiorari against the recommendations of a quasi-judicial Lokayukta. Examining the distinction between civil and criminal proceedings, the nature of jurisdiction under Articles 226 and 227 of the Constitution, and precedents including CIT v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas, Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai, Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath and Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat, the Supreme Court emphasised that the substance and actual character of the proceedings, rather than their nomenclature, determine the nature of jurisdiction exercised.
The Supreme Court held that the Single Judge had exercised criminal jurisdiction because the proceedings substantially concerned allegations of criminal misconduct, the recommendation for prosecution and the consequential FIR. Merely registering the petition as a civil writ or seeking a writ of certiorari did not alter its essential criminal character. Consequently, the Division Bench could not entertain a Letters Patent Appeal against the Single Judge’s judgment. The Supreme Court allowed the appeal and set aside the Division Bench’s order dated 12 May 2016, while leaving the State at liberty to pursue an appropriate remedy against the Single Judge’s judgment in accordance with law. The Court made no order as to costs.
Cases Discussed
- Lalita Kumari v. Government of Uttar Pradesh — (2014) 2 SCC 1
- Justice Chandrashekaraiah (Retd.) v. Janekere C. Krishna — (2013) 3 SCC 117
- South Asia Industries Pvt. Ltd. v. S.B. Sarup Singh — (1965) 2 SCR 756
- Jamshed N. Guzdar v. State of Maharashtra — (2005) 2 SCC 591
- Commissioner of Income Tax v. Ishwarlal Bhagwandas — (1966) 1 SCR 190
- Umaji Keshao Meshram v. Radhikabai — 1986 Supp SCC 401
- Ashok K. Jha v. Garden Silk Mills Ltd. — (2009) 10 SCC 584
- Ramesh Chandra Sankla v. Vikram Cement — (2008) 14 SCC 58
- Radhey Shyam v. Chhabi Nath — (2015) 5 SCC 423
- Jogendrasinhji Vijaysinghji v. State of Gujarat — (2015) 9 SCC 1
