Spell out charter of duties of Vigilance office, High Court tells Chandigarh

Tribune News Service
Chandigarh, March 2

Advertisement

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has asked the UT Administration to come out with a charter of duties and functions of the Vigilance office. The direction came after the Bench of Justice Rajan Gupta and Justice Karamjit Singh was told that the Adviser to the Administrator was currently functioning as the Chief Vigilance Officer.

The submission came just over a fortnight after the Bench asked the UT Administration to elaborate whether a regular Chief Vigilance Officer was functioning in Chandigarh. The Bench had 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.

As the case came up for resumed hearing, UT standing counsel Pankaj Jain submitted that the inquiry was instituted in the instant case, was kept in abeyance due to a civil suit preferred before a court. He also prayed for additional time to file a detailed reply.

The Bench, on the previous date of hearing, 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 economical 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.