High Court orders Vigilance probe into excess rooms at Circuit House in Amritsar

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the Vigilance Bureau Director to verify whether a private hospitality firm constructed 19 rooms in excess on state-owned circuit house land in Amritsar. The Bench observed that such construction could not have been carried out in a concealed manner, while indicating possible involvement of senior officials. Justice Jagmohan Bansal also asked the Director to identify officials responsible –– if excess construction was confirmed –– and take appropriate action.

During the hearing, the State counsel submitted that the petitioner-firm, under the contract, was permitted to construct 70 rooms, but 89 rooms were built on government-owned land. Taking up the matter, Justice Bansal remarked: “A room cannot be constructed in a concealed or stealth manner. It was impossible to construct 89 rooms without the connivance of senior officers of the respondent.”

The court directed: “The Director, Vigilance Bureau is hereby directed to verify whether 70 rooms are constructed or 89 rooms are constructed.” Justice Bansal further called for a report on those responsible for constructing 19 rooms in excess, if confirmed, and asserted: “Appropriate action be taken against the officials of both sides found responsible.” The matter has been fixed for further hearing on May 29.

“The Director, Vigilance Bureau is requested to personally look into the matter,” Justice Bansal concluded.

The matter was brought to the court’s notice after Sarb Alliance Hospitality Pvt Ltd filed a petition against the State of Punjab and other respondents. It was seeking directions to respondents to release “compliance certificate” in terms of a clause in the agreement dated May 27.

The petitioner, among other things, submitted that it had entered into a concession agreement with respondents to develop, operate and maintain project –– Circuit House Building –– for 30 years. The respondent, other the other hand, was demanding annual concession fee

Referring to a clause, the petitioner contended annual concession fee was payable after 18 months from the compliance date, which was when the compliance certificate was issued. The respondent, as such, had withheld compliance certificate, but were demanding Annual Concession Fee.