One Bench to hear all cases

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, September 19

HUDA multiple plot allotment cases will soon be listed before one Bench. The Punjab and Haryana High Court, taking cognisance of the fact that similar cases arising out of multiple allotments are pending before different Benches, has directed their listing before the “one and the same” Bench to prevent conflicting views.

The direction from Justice Fateh Deep Singh came during the hearing of a petition filed by Jagmal Singh against the state of Haryana for grant of anticipatory bail in a cheating case registered in Rewari district.

Justice Fateh Deep Singh said it was noticed during the course of arguments that several cases of the similar nature, arising out of allotment of HUDA plots, were pending before different Benches in the High Court. The fact was also admitted by the two rival sides.

The judge then directed the Registrar (Judicial) to get the details of all such cases similar in nature before obtaining the necessary permission from the Chief Justice. The Registrar was then told to ensure that the cases are listed before the same Bench to “avoid expression of divergent opinions”. The Bench also confirmed the interim bail granted to the petitioner on April 19.

Jagmal Singh had moved the High Court after a case for cheating and other offences was registered at Model Town police station in Rewari district in January on a complaint by the HUDA Estate Officer. The petitioner was accused of managing allotment of two plots under the ex-serviceman category against his entitlement of a solitary plot. His counsel contended that the first plot was allotted under the ex-serviceman category, but its ownership was not with the petitioner on the date of submitting the application for the second plot. As such, the bar on submitting an application form was not in existence.

The Bench was also told that the police/investigating agency had already taken into possession the record pertaining to both plots from HUDA. As such, custodial interrogation of the retired defence person was not warranted.

The state counsel also submitted that the petitioner was no longer required for further investigation and nothing was to be recovered from him. He has no objection if the interim order was made absolute.

Justice Daya Chaudhary of the High Court had on a petition alleging attempts by the police to exploit helpless people in the multiple plots allotment case despite stay orders had recently ruled against the adoption of coercive methods. “It is directed that in case the applicant is required in relation to any inquiry, no coercive method be adopted,” Justice Chaudhary had ruled.