IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.7534 of 2010 Date of Decision: 27.09.2010 Tirlok Chand ........Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Gaurav Mohunta, Advocate for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. (ORAL) A plot No.888-P in Sector-25, Part-II, Urban Estate, Panipat was allotted to the petitioner on his application, filed in response to the advertisement, issued by the respondents. Some complaints were received by the respondents regarding wrong allotment of plots. State Vigilance Bureau sought information regarding the status of the petitioner and the requisite information. On furnishing of such information, a Show Cause Notice dated 31.07.2009 (Annexure P-10) was issued to the petitioner seeking his explanation as to why the plot may not be cancelled on the basis of the investigation report. Petitioner submitted his reply to the show cause notice. The respondents, however, passed the impugned order dated 19.01.2010 (Annexure P-1) whereby the plot allotted to the petitioner has been cancelled. The only ground for cancellation of the plot is that the same was allotted in violation of the policy and the petitioner was found on a higher post. The entire basis for passing the impugned order is the report of the Vigilance Bureau. Though, some observations of the report were incorporated in the show cause notice, however, it is admitted position that Civil Writ Petition No.7534 of 2010 -2- report of the Vigilance Bureau was never furnished to the petitioner. One of the contention raised by the petitioner is non-furnishing of the vigilance report, which has caused prejudice to the petitioner. The order passed by the Estate Officer canceling the plot was in fact appealable before the Administrator-respondent No.2. The petitioner, however, approached this Court alleging violation of the principles of natural justice. It was under in these circumstances, this writ petition seems to have been filed. Since the impugned order has been passed without furnishing the investigation report to the petitioner, the impugned order is not sustainable in law for non compliance of principles of natural justice. However, at this stage, I refrain from interfering in the impugned order. The petitioner has the efficacious remedy of appeal before the competent appellate authority where petitioner shall have liberty to raise all the issues. This writ petition is accordingly disposed of with the following directions:- (i) Respondents will furnish the report of the Vigilance Bureau to the petitioner within a period of two weeks from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order; (ii) Petitioner shall file an appeal before the competent Appellate Authority i.e. respondent No.2 within a period of four weeks thereafter. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal in accordance with law within a period of four months thereafter; (iii) Till the matter is decided by the Appellate Authority, the possession of the petitioner, shall not be disturbed. 27.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE