Depute responsible officer, High Court directs UT CVO

CHANDIGARH:Taking cognisance of alleged demand of illegal gratification from traders in Chandigarh — coupled with cancellation and restoration of licences by the market committee, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday directed the UT Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) to depute a “responsible officer”.

Saurabh Malik

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, December 7

Taking cognisance of alleged demand of illegal gratification from traders in Chandigarh — coupled with cancellation and restoration of licences by the market committee, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Thursday directed the UT Chief Vigilance Officer (CVO) to depute a “responsible officer”. He was directed to remain present before the Bench on the next date of hearing.

The developments took place on a petition filed against the UT Administration and other respondents by M/S Ram Diyal and Company, along with another respondent. As the case came up for resumed hearing, counsel Namrata Shergil appeared before Justice Rajan Gupta’s Bench and prayed for additional time to seek instructions and file a reply to the issues raised in the petition.

Setting a week’s deadline for the purpose, Justice Gupta minced no words to assert: “It appears a number of cases have come up before this court, wherein similar situation has arisen. It is not clear why licences of various firms are suddenly cancelled and thereafter restored by the secretary of the market committee”.

Justice Gupta said the counsel for the petitioner SD Bansal had levelled certain allegations with regard to illegal gratification being sought from traders and had submitted that he would also file an affidavit in this regard within a week.

Justice Gupta then directed the Chief Vigilance Officer to depute an officer for the court hearing. The petitioner, on the previous date of hearing, had told Justice Gupta’s Bench that licence for sale and purchase of vegetables in his case had been cancelled by the Secretary, market committee. Elaborating, the counsel had asserted that the licence was cancelled merely on the ground that the constitution of the firm had changed. This, the counsel had asserted, was not permissible in law.

Issuing a notice of motion to the respondents on the petition, Justice Gupta had asserted that the petitioner could, in the meantime, sell any vegetables he had purchased, which were perishable in nature. Before parting with the matter, Justice Gupta fixed the case for further hearing next week.

The Chandigarh State Agricultural Marketing Board/Market Committee was established in 1969 under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961, with an objective to control and supervise the marketing network of sale, purchase, storage and processing of processed or non-processed agricultural produce from agricultural, horticulture, animal husbandry and forest produce.