IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007
DATE OF DECISION: December 18, 2008
Surinder Vaid and another
...Petitioners
Versus
Haryana Urban Development Authority and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
Present: Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate,
for the petitioners.
Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate,
for the respondents.
1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be
allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in
the Digest?
M.M. KUMAR, J.
The prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of
direction to the respondents to issue transfer letter in respect of Plot
No. 1019, Sector 7 (UE) Part-II, Kurukshetra, in favour of petitioner
No. 2. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction
C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 2
to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate legal as well as
disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5.
2. The allegations made in the instant petition are that
petitioner No. 2 was asked to pay bribery of Rs. 2,000/- by
respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in order to enable her to obtain a copy of the
transfer letter in respect of the aforementioned plot and when she
refused to succumb to the pressure then different transfer letter
demanding extension fee of Rs. 11,340/- was issued. In that regard
reliance has also been placed on the findings recorded by the
Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra on the complaint filed
by the petitioners, in his order dated 21.2.2007 (P-4). The allegation
leveled is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner never
incorporated the last line in the order concluding that the allegation of
bribery of Rs. 2,000/- against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not been
proved. Reliance has also been placed on the forwarding letter sent
by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, dated 26.2.2007 (P-5),
which does not, in fact, in terms conclude that respondent Nos. 4 and
5 have been indicted for taking bribery of Rs. 2,000/-.
3. The stand of the respondents in their separate written
statement is that in fact the petitioners have forged the transfer letter
dated 11.10.2006 because they have deleted the amount of extension
fee, which was mentioned in clause 9(e) of the letter as well as
removed the tick marks which were put on condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and
9.
C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 3
4. The petitioners have already set the machinery of
criminal justice in motion against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by filing a
complaint before the Illaqua Magistrate, Kurukshetra, under Sections
166, 167, 409, 420, 217, 218, 500, 506, 499, 120-B IPC and Section
7, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Likewise,
respondent No. 4 has also filed a complaint dated 8.10.2007 (R-3)
against both the petitioners and two others, in the Court of Chief
Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The matter with regard to
allegations and counter allegations is already sub judice before the
regular Court of law, which shall be decided in due course of time.
5. The only issue which remains to be examined by this
Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to issuance of transfer
letter in respect of Plot No. 1019, Sector 7, Part-II, Kurukshetra,
which is to be issued in favour of petitioner No. 2. The stand of the
respondents in that regard is that already such a letter has been issued
on 11.10.2006 (R-2) and a copy of the postal information, dated
12.2.2007, has also been attached as Annexure R-1, showing that
Surinder Vaid son of Shri Som Nath (petitioner No. 1) was delivered
the aforementioned letter in original. The subject of letter dated
11.10.2006 (R-2) is ‘Provisionally Transfer permission of
Residential/Commercial Plot No. 1019, Sector 7, Urban Estate,
Kurukshetra through GPA Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rajpal H. No.
111-A, Model Town, Karnal’. Transfer of plot in question has been
made provisionally in favour of petitioner No. 2 subject to fulfillment
of various conditions. Mr. Ajay Kansal, learned counsel for the
C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 4
respondents has also handed over another attested photocopy of the
letter dated 11.10.2006 (R-2) to the learned counsel for the petitioners
and stated that for all intents and purposes it should be considered as
a copy of the provisional transfer permission. The aforementioned
controversy also comes to an end.
6. In view of the statement made by the respondents
through Mr. Ajay Kansal, it is for the petitioners now to take further
steps. The period of 90 days will commence not from the date of
communication of letter on 11.10.2006 but from today, which would
be subject to any further charges in accordance with law.
7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms.
(M.M. KUMAR)
JUDGE
(JORA SINGH)
December 18, 2008 JUDGE
Pkapoor