HUDA plot:Gen Vaidya’s kin moves HC

Saurabh Malik

Advertisement

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, June 26

Former Army Chief General Arun Shridhar Vaidya’s daughter Tarini Vaidya has moved the Punjab and Haryana High Court against alleged “unnecessary” dragging of their name in the HUDA multiple plots allotment case. Gen Vaidya had led Operation Bluestar in 1984.

Seeking directions for making her a party in the ongoing case for putting at rest the controversy, Tarini claimed HUDA acknowledged they were father and daughter, yet their names were shown in the list of husband-wife allottees. Taking up the application, Justice Daya Chaudhary has asked the state of Haryana to respond. The notice has been accepted by the counsel for the petitioners.

Tarini has asserted that she was already earning when she applied for the plot. The gap between allotment of plots to her and her father, in any case, was 10 years. Elaborating, she said HUDA had earlier submitted a status report on husbands and wives with double allotment.

“The name of the applicant figured, along with that of her late father Arun S Vaidya, wherein his plot was shown to have been allotted in 1976 and that of the applicant in 1986,” she asserted.

She said the unnecessarily mentioning of their names has caused “great pain and anguish” to her, particularly when the allotment was neither double, nor against any policy or rules. The same was true in her father’s case.

She submitted that she and her father were “independent individuals being separate legal entities” and that they were allotted plots at different points in time with a significant time difference of 10 years.

Tarini said she was a 22-year-old adult in 1986 working with a top multinational bank and, consequently, had access to her own independent income and funds.

The applicant further added she was getting paid sufficiently to shell out for the plot’s allotment out of her own earnings. “She was neither a minor, nor was she dependant on her father. Hence, allotment is neither double, nor can it fall under the category of dependants or any other category under scrutiny before the High Court,” she said.