Arguing before a division bench comprising Justice G.S. Singhvi and Justice Amar Dutt, the counsel stated that the petitioner was not an aggrieved party. Further, the "PIL norms of dilution of locus standi" were not applicable as the petition had not been filed on behalf of the needy or the disadvantaged.

She further submitted that "case law of the Apex Court had clearly established that a writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India was not maintainable against a private party" and both the Commission and the Committee were private bodies.

Alleging the petition to be "purely" based on a hypothetical assumption, she denied the petitioner's contention regarding the public order being disturbed by its working in an irresponsible manner. No law had been violated, she claimed.

The State of Punjab in their affidavit, she added, had stated that no law and order problem had been created due to the Commission's functioning.

Terming the petition as "frivolous", she contended that the allegations regarding the subversion of the judicial hierarchy were also vague. She also described the petitioner's contention regarding the Commission arrogating to itself judicial powers as "ex-facie ludicrous".

In a 13-page written argument handed over to the court, she stated that the petition had been filed with "the express intention to sabotage the sincere attempts of the intervener in its effort at uncovering the truth". Maintaining the Commission to be "conscious of the rule of sub-judice", she submitted that the Commission had "limited itself from examining live cases". Going into the background, she stated that the initiative to set up a People's Commission was taken by the intervener as inaction on part of the State of Punjab in setting up an independent Commission of Inquiry under the Commission of Inquiry Act, 1952 had frustrated them. The case will now come up on April 6 for further arguments.

Challenging the commission's functioning, a practising advocate of the High Court, Sudarshan Goel, had earlier sought directions for restraining the respondent from carrying out its activities. He had added that the Commission was an attempt to set up a parallel judicial system.

HC notice on auction of Faridkot liquor vends
On a petition alleging the non-acceptance of Rs 1.20 crore as security offered by the "successful bidder" after the auction of certain liquor vends in the Faridkot excise circle, a division bench of the Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued notice of motion for March 26.

The bench, comprising Justice Jawahar Lal Gupta and Justice N.K. Agrawal, also issued notice "regarding stay" for the same date.

In his petition, Messrs Mangat Rai and Company of Tej Bagh Colony in Patiala had earlier contended that according to the available information, the officials were not accepting the amount "under the pressure of the chief minister, Punjab."

The chief minister, the counsel for the petitioner had added, had directed that the vends "should be allotted to Deep Malhotra even if he does not happen to be the highest bidder".

The counsel had further submitted that the non-acceptance of the amount, 10 per cent of the licence fee, was in violation of the auction terms and conditions, besides the Punjab Excise Act, 1914 and "the rules framed thereunder".

Going into the background, he had stated that the petitioner was declared successful after his bid of Rs 12 crore for liquor vends of group number one to three was accepted as the highest. The requisite amount of Rs 1.20 crore was, however, not accepted, he had added.

Seeking directions to the State of Punjab, the Patiala Excise and Taxation Commissioner and the Collector-cum-Deputy Excise and Taxation Commissioner (respondent number 3) for accepting 10 per cent of the licence fee, he had also asked for directions to the respondents to issue the licence to the petitioner.

After hearing the counsel, the bench observed: "Mohan Jain, advocate, states that the petitioner has given him bank drafts for an amount of Rs 1.20 crore. The counsel has shown these drafts to us. The drafts bear dates prior to March 21, 1999. He submits that this amount of Rs 1.20 crore was offered to respondent number 3 as deposit of 10 per cent of the bid of Rs 12 crore given by the petitioner. The amount was not accepted. He states that the respondents are wanting to give the licence to a person for an amount less than Rs 12 crore".

The bench further observed: "Even though Jain has offered to hand over the drafts to the registrar of his court, these have been returned to him for being deposited if the need arises on a subsequent date".