The Madhya Pradesh High Court has dismissed a petition by Bollywood actor Randeep Hooda seeking protection from coercive action regarding alleged construction on his property near the Kanha Tiger Reserve
The court deemed Hooda’s plea as not maintainable and refused to quash a show-cause notice issued in connection with the alleged construction near the buffer zone of the reserve.
Justice GS Ahluwalia, who presided over the single bench, stated, “Whether petitioner (Hooda) is raising any construction or not, is a disputed question of fact which cannot be decided by this Court.” The court clarified that it had not considered the merits of the allegations in the show-cause notice or Hooda’s defense. The proceedings will be decided by the Sub Divisional Officer (Revenue) in Baihar, Balaghat district, based on evidence presented.
The SDO had issued the notice to Hooda on June 18, citing a report by an enquiry committee that alleged construction was being carried out without mandatory clearance from various departments. Hooda was directed to halt the work and appear before the concerned officer on June 19 to submit relevant clearance documents. Subsequently, Hooda approached the High Court.
The government’s lawyer argued that Hooda’s plea was premature. The court disposed of the petition with several observations, including:
– If Hooda files an application for the enquiry report, it must be provided within three days.
– If Hooda requests a spot inspection, it must be conducted by the Competent Authority, and the date fixed by the SDO will be binding on all parties.
– Failure by Hooda or his representative to attend the inspection forfeits the right to contest the absence.
– Hooda must file any objections to the spot inspection within three days of the inspection.
– The SDO must decide on the show-cause notice within 15 days of the inspection report.
If Hooda does not apply for the enquiry report or request a spot inspection within 15 days, the court’s observations will lose effect. Hooda’s counsel argued that the show-cause notice, issued on June 18, required a response by the next day, and if a final order had already been passed, Hooda should be allowed to appeal.
In his petition, Hooda sought to quash the June 18 notice and prevent authorities from taking coercive actions against him. Government Advocate Mohan Sausarkar countered that no adverse order had been issued against Hooda, who had been given the opportunity to present his case. Sausarkar dismissed Hooda’s claim that the notice was issued to “gain cheap popularity” as baseless and affirmed that actions would be taken strictly according to the law.
(With inputs from agency)
Share your news, articles, deals, columns, or press releases with us! Click the link to submit and join our platform today.
