HC dismisses actor Hooda’s plea to quash suit over ‘construction work’ near tiger reserve | Mumbai News

Jabalpur, The Madhya Pradesh High Court has allowed a petition filed by Bollywood actor Randeep Hooda seeking to restrain the authorities from taking coercive action against him over construction work taking place on his property near the Kanha Tiger Reserve.

The court found that Hooda’s appeal was not maintainable, but refused to quash a notice of hearing served on him in connection with the alleged construction work near the reserve’s buffer zone.

“Whether the plaintiff has made an interpretation or not is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this court,” the single bench comprising Justice GS Ahluwalia observed.

The Supreme Court clarified that it had neither examined the merits of the allegations made in the notice of hearing given to Hooda nor the merits of the defence raised by the plaintiff.

It was said that the case would be decided by the SDO Baihar in Balaghat district strictly on the basis of evidence on record.

Sub-divisional officer Balaghat had served a notice to Hooda on June 18, citing the report of an inquiry committee into construction work being carried out without the necessary permission of various departments, and directed him to stop the work immediately.

The SDO had asked the applicant to appear before the officer in charge on June 19 and submit documents relating to the necessary permissions. Hooda then approached the HC. \

The prosecutor described the plea as premature.

“The application is dismissed with the observation that in case the applicant files a request for providing a copy of the investigation report submitted by the Commission of Inquiry, the same shall be provided to him within three days from the date of filing the request,” said the court order on Thursday, which also contained a number of observations.

If the plaintiff requests a random inspection in his presence, it will be carried out by the competent authority, the court stated.

“The date fixed by the SDO, Baihar, District Balaghat, shall be binding on all authorities as well as the applicant,” it said.

If the plaintiff or a person authorized by him does not take part in the sample test, the plaintiff has no right to claim that the sample test was carried out in his absence or in the absence of a person authorized by him, the judge explained.

If the plaintiff has any objections to the sample inspection, he must submit them to the SDO within three days of the sample inspection, the court said.

“The SDO, Baihar, District Balaghat shall decide on the notice of appeal after hearing the applicant within 15 days from the date of submission of the sample inspection report,” the judge ordered.

If the application for submission of an investigation report or for conducting a sample inspection is not made within 15 days from “today”, the court’s findings will automatically lose their effect, said Judge Ahluwalia.

Hooda’s counsel submitted that the notice of hearing was issued on June 18 and the actor was directed to file his reply the next day.

“It is submitted that SDO, Baihar, District Balaghat, may have passed the final order and in that case, it is noted that the complainant is at liberty to file an appeal,” it said.

In his petition, Hooda urged the court to quash the June 18 hearing order and restrain the authorities from taking any coercive action against him.

Government advocate Mohan Sausarkar termed the application as premature and said no order had been passed against the interests of the petitioner and he had already been given an opportunity to present his case.

He dismissed the actor’s fears that the termination had been served on him in order to “gain cheap popularity” and called them “unfounded”.

“The measures must be taken strictly in accordance with the law and without any external considerations,” he added.

This article was generated from an automated news agency feed without any modifications.