B.S. Walia ORDER
Muzaffar Hussain Attar, J.
1. The core and fundamental issue involved in these Appeals is whether the Accountability Commission (for short Commission) is possessed of the power of initiating suo moto proceedings under the Jammu & Kashmir Accountability Commission Act, 2002 (for short Act of 2002).
2. Since the issue involved in these Appeals is common, they are, accordingly, being disposed of by this common judgment, excepting the lead case (LPA 15/2013).
3. These Appeals have arisen out of the judgment of the learned writ Court dated 04th January, 2013, passed in a batch of writ petitions, whereunder the power of the Commission, to initiate suo moto proceedings under the Act of 2002, was called in question.
4. The learned writ Court, vide aforesaid judgment, held regulation 9 of Jammu & Kashmir Accountability Commission Regulations, 2005 (for short Regulations of 2005) to be ultra vires the Act of 2002 and, accordingly, struck down the same. The learned writ court, in consequence of the aforesaid declaration, allowed OWPs 727/2012, 804/2012, 242/2012, 956/2006, 94/2007 & 64/2007. Learned writ Court, however, ruled that the proceedings initiated by the Commission against Smt. Suman Lata Bhagat and Vikas Behal alias Vikas Bhagat, who had challenged the proceedings initiated against them by the Commission in OWP 902/2006 and OWP 72/2007, to be competent and further provided that the proceedings against them will continue before the Commission. Learned writ Court disallowed the aforesaid writ petitions on the ground that the Commission had initiated the proceedings against the aforementioned persons on the basis of complaint filed by one Mohammad Shafi Andrabi, which, as per finding of the learned writ Court, was filed in accordance with the Act of 2002.
5. Mr. Pranav Kohli, learned counsel appearing for the Commission, argued at great length. He, in support of his contention that the Commission has suo moto power to initiate action against a public functionary, though referred to the preamble of the Act of 2002 and almost all the provisions of the Act of 2002, however, placed strong reliance on sections, 3, 9 & 12 of the Act of 2002 and regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2005. Learned counsel submitted that corruption, which has become potential threat for running the affairs of the State in accordance with laws, necessitated for legislating the Act of 2002. He placed heavy reliance upon section 9 of the Act of 2002 and submitted that the Commission has the power to investigate any action, which is taken by or with the general or specific approval of a public functionary defined in sub-section 16 of section 2 of the Act of 2002. Learned counsel also referred to sub-section 2 of section 9 of the Act of 2002 and submitted that under this provision, the Commission has been given power to enquire into any act or conduct of any person, other than a public functionary, in so far as it considers it necessary so to do for the purpose of enquiring into any such allegation. Learned counsel submitted that conjoint reading of the provisions of the Act of 2002 would show that the Commission has suo moto power to proceed against any public functionary in accordance with the mandate contained in the Act of 2002. Learned counsel submitted that regulation 9 of the Regulations of 2005 prescribe procedure to be followed when the Commission intends to take suo moto action. Mr. Kohli vehemently argued that the view taken by the learned writ court is not in consonance with the intent and purpose underlying the Act of 2002. He, in support of his contention, referred to and relied upon the judgements of Hon'ble the Supreme Court, reported in 2015 (9) SCC 2009, 2004 (8) SCC 682, MANU/SC/0619/2010 : 2010 (8) SCC 701, MANU/SC/0831/2010 : 2010 (12) SCC 599. He also referred to the decision of Kerala High Court rendered ........