THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 16492 of 2006 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: December 8, 2008 Zile Singh …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. S.K. Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Palika Monga, AAG, Haryana, for respondent No. 1. Mr. J.P. Bhatt, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for issuance of a direction to the respondents to allot him plot in terms of result Annexure P-2, which is a computer generated copy. He has applied for allotment of a plot in Sector 18, Panipat by depositing adequate amount and the draw was held on 12.9.2006. C.W.P. No. 16492 of 2006 2. According to the computer generated copy of the result attached with the petition (P-2), at Sr. No. 416, the name of one Lieutenant Zile Singh with application No. BPPT008933 has been mentioned and he is shown to be successful for allotment of 10 marla plot No. 1498 in the draw of lot. However, the petitioner has claimed that the aforementioned entry No. 416 in the computer generated copy belongs to him and he is entitled to be allotted plot on that basis. 3. A perusal of the application form belonging to the petitioner attached by respondent Nos. 2 and 3 with the written statement (R-1) would show that the petitioner is not a Lieutenant and his name is Zile Singh son of Shri Daryab Singh, whereas the original record, which has been produced before us, shows that the name of successful applicant is Lieutenant Zile Singh son of Shri Neki Ram. This would have been sufficient to dismiss the petition. 4. However, on the last date of hearing this Court with the concurrence of both the counsel, the Bench has directed the Inspector General of Chandigarh Police to depute a Sub-Inspector well conversant with the cyber crimes and its detection after making an inquiry. The inquiry report dated 8.12.2008 prepared by the Cyber Crime Investigation Cell, Chandigarh Police, UT, Chandigarh, has been submitted, which is taken on record as Mark ‘A’. The opinion expressed by the Cyber Cell is as follows: “ From the perusal of electronic record downloaded with the help of www.archive.org pertaining to the website of www.huda.nic.in it has been found that in the “List of Successful applicants for HUDA Scheme Bal 2k5 sector 18 PPT” at Serial No. 416 the following 2 C.W.P. No. 16492 of 2006 information is mentioned “S. No: 416. Registration No: BPPT008992. Application No: 300962. Name of Applicant: INDERJIT SINGH. Category: P/MIL. Size: 10 M. Plot No: 1883’. The same is shown at annexure page 5/22.” 5. In para 9 of the petition the petitioner has categorically asserted that his name could be seen on the list of successful candidates at Sr. No. 416 and he attached a computer generated copy of the list (P-2). How the computer copy (P-2) has been generated by the petitioner remains to be explained. There has been active misrepresentation by the petitioner before this Court and, therefore, we direct that respondent No. 1-State of Haryana to take further steps to register a case because the tendency is on the rise and a number of cases with these type of frivolous pleas have been filed. 6. The writ petition is dismissed with the aforementioned direction. 7. The action taken report be placed on record within three months. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 8, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3