Query on Chandigarh Chief Vigilance Officer functioning remains unanswered, says Punjab and Haryana High Court

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, March 26

The Punjab and Haryana High Court today made it clear that its query on the functioning of the UT Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) was still in the realm of obscurity, with the Administration failing to provide a lucid answer.

“This Court has put general query to the state counsel about the duties enjoined upon the CVO. He has produced list of live services. We have perused the same. However, our question regarding the functioning of the CVO remains unanswered,” the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh asserted.

The Bench also gave the UT counsel liberty of a fortnight to file short affidavit regarding the query as well. The case will now come for further hearing in the second week of April. The counsel appearing for the Administration and other respondents was earlier asked to seek instructions from the authorities concerned whether the duties were being discharged on a regular basis and that too promptly.

The Bench had passed the directions after the UT counsel prayed for additional time to file a reply to the queries earlier raised by the Court. The UT Administration has already been asked to apprise the Bench whether a regular Chief Vigilance Officer was functioning in Chandigarh. It was also asked to come out with the details of a Vigilance inquiry, if pending, on a representation filed by the Marble Arch Residents Welfare Association.

The Bench was earlier 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 economical weaker section (EWS) category. In March 2016, however, they decided to raise another tower for the construction of flats for the EWS category. Even permission for this construction was granted by the authority concerned. Thereafter, the petitioner-association made representations and the Vigilance inquiry was also instituted. But the petitioner-association had no inkling about the fate of the Vigilance inquiry.