Is there a regular CVO, High Court asks Chandigarh

Saurabh Malik
Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, February 15

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today asked the UT Administration to apprise the Bench whether a regular Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) was functioning in Chandigarh. A Division Bench of the High Court also asked the Administration and other respondents to come out with the details of a Vigilance inquiry, if pending, on a representation filed by the Marble Arch Residents Welfare Association.

Flats for EWS

The petitioner’s counsel said M/s Uppal Housing Private Limited did not undertake any activity for raising flats for the EWS category. In March 2016, however, they decided to raise another tower for the construction of flats for the EWS. Even permission for this was granted by the authority concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner-association made representations and a Vigilance inquiry was also instituted. However, the petitioner-association had no inkling about the fate of the Vigilance inquiry.

As a petition filed by the residents’ welfare association came up for hearing, the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh was told that that the site for M/s Uppal Housing Private Limited was auctioned for approximately Rs108 crore. In the brochure issued thereafter, it was promised that 168 flats of three/four bedrooms would be constructed in nine towers.

Believing the representation, the petitioner-association purchased the flats. Possession was, thereafter, handed over to the allottees and sale deeds were also executed. As the matter was being dealt with by the Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, the petitioner-association was confident that the civic body would act in a transparent manner.

The petitioner’s counsel added M/s Uppal Housing Private Limited did not undertake any activity for raising flats for the economically weaker section (EWS) category. In March 2016, however, they decided to raise another tower for the construction of flats for the EWS. Even permission for this construction was granted by the authority concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner-association made representations and a Vigilance inquiry was also instituted. However, the petitioner-association had no inkling about the fate of the Vigilance inquiry.

Issuing a notice of motion, the Bench asserted: “The court also be apprised whether a regular CVO is functioning in Chandigarh. In case assertion of the petitioner as regards pendency of a Vigilance inquiry is correct, the court may be apprised whether any progress has been made in such an inquiry. The authority concerned shall be at liberty to file an affidavit in this regard”. The case will now come up for hearing in February last week.