COCP No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.9.2009 Air Marshal Loreto P Pereira (Retd.) & ors. ......Petitioner(s) Versus Sh. T.C. Gupta, IAS & ors. ......Respondent(s) CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG * * * Present: Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate for respondent No.1 Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for respondent No.2. Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate for respondent No.3. Rakesh Kumar Garg, J.(Oral) In the present case, respondent No.1 is the chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula. Respondent No.2 is the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon and respondent No3 is Estate Officer-II, HUDA, Gurgaon. These respondents were being represented through Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate. Today, Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Advocate, has appeared in this case and stated that he has been engaged by respondent No.1. Similarly, Dr. Surya Parkash, Advocate has stated that he is appearing for respondent No.3. Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, who is present in Court and was representing all the respondents till today has no objection to the appearance of the aforesaid learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.1 and 3. COCP No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) 2 CM No.17654-CII of 2009 Application is allowed subject to all just exceptions. COCP No.1262 of 2009 Sh. T.C. Gupta, IAS, Chief Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula-respondent No.1 and Smt. Deepti Umashankar, IAS, Administrator Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon, are present in Court. The grievance of the petitioners before this Court is that the respondents have wilfully disobeyed the directions rendered by this Court vide order dated 31.3.2009 in CWP Nos.13941 of 2007,14061 of 2007 and 702 of 2008 wherein the following order was passed:- “During the course of hearing, Mr. Arun Walia, learned Standing Counsel for the HUDA states that in order to obviate the hardship of those allottees/re-allottees who are clamouring for allotment of alternative plots, the HUDA authorities have no objection in holding a limited Draw of Lots for re-allotment of the available plot. The afore-stated stand taken on behalf of the HUDA is acceptable to learned counsel for the petitioners. Learned counsel for the private respondents also has no serious objection provided that the mini-draw of lots is held without loss of time. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and in view of the agreed stand taken by them, these writ petitions are disposed of with a direction to the HUDA authorities that all the available plots including those which have already been allotted to the private COCP No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) 3 respondents, be pooled together and put to a limited draw of lots which shall be confined to all those allottees/re-allottees who are eligible for allotment of alternative plots in their respective categories. The previous allotments made in favour of the private respondents are accordingly set aside, as they will be entitled to fresh allotments in the manner, directed above. The mini-draw of lots shall be held under the supervision and control of Mrs. Dipti Umashanker, IAS, Deputy Commissioner, Gurgaon, who is requested to donate some time for this public cause. The mini-draw of lots shall be held as early as possible but not later than two months from today.” The case of the petitioners is that the respondents held a draw on 4.5.2009 in a secretive manner and did not include the names of the petitioners. It is further the case of the petitioners that the respondents were further going to hold a draw of lots on 20.7.2009 for the petitioners but after having already allotted premium plots to others. Since the applicants apprehended that certain other premium plots which were lying vacant and available for allotment would not be included in the aforesaid draw of lots, they have approached this Court by way of present contempt petition. In response to the show cause notice issued by this Court, reply was filed on behalf of the respondents. During the pendency of the proceedings, draw of lots was held on 19.8.2009 as per affidavit dated 6.8.2009 of respondent No.2. On the basis of the aforesaid draw of lots, the respondents allotted plot No.15, Sector 43, plot No.834, Sector 47 and Plot No.881 in Sector 5, Gurgaon in favour of petitioners No.1 to 3 COCP No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) 4 respectively. On 10.9.2009, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that petitioner No.1 is satisfied and has accepted the allotment in his favour and therefore, he was not pressing the petition on his behalf. Accordingly, the petition on his behalf was ordered to be dismissed. However, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners No.2 and 3 filed an affidavit in which it was specifically stated that as per the list attached as Annexure A- 2 along with the affidavit dated 6.9.2009, certain categories of plots of 1 kanal which were available for allotment were not included. The petitioners also gave the numbers of aforesaid plots in their affidavit and thus, it was argued that the respondents are guilty of concealing material information from this Court and had filed false affidavit . Faced with the aforesaid situation, Mr. Siddharth Batra, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents, sought short adjournment to seek further instructions. Today, an additional affidavit of Sh. T.C. Gupta, Chief Administrator, Haryana Urban Development Authority, Sector-6, Panchkula (respondent No.1) has been filed. Para No.3 of the aforesaid affidavit reads as follows:- “That the Administrator, HUDA, Gurgaon (Respondent No.2) sent an e-mail on 2.7.2009 to the deponent for seeking certain clarifications regarding holding of the draw in compliance of the order. The clarification was sent to respondent No.2 on 7.8.2009 vide Memo No.5580-81 mentioning therein inter alia that all the available plots in Sectors mentioned in the prayer clause of the Writ Petitions may be included in the draw provided the petitioners give consent. A copy of the clarification letter is attached herewith as Annexure R-B1 COCP No.1262 of 2009 (O&M) 5 for ready reference. This clarification was sent after the representative of petitioners had met the deponent.” Mr. Sanjiv Bansal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of petitioners No.2 and 3 has no objection in case the fresh draw of lots is held for petitioners No.2 and 3 by the respondent-Authorities in accordance with the aforesaid averments as made in the afore-stated paragraph. He has further stated that the petitioners shall be satisfied if they are allotted the plots on the basis of fresh draw of lots held in accordance with para No.3 of the aforesaid affidavit. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondents has no objection to this. On the consensus of the parties, let a fresh draw of lots be held within two weeks from today as per the aforesaid paragraph of the affidavit. It is needless to say that on the basis of such draw of lots, the consequential allotment will be made in favour of the petitioners. In view of the aforesaid order passed, learned counsel for the petitioners does not wish to press this petition. Disposed of . Rule discharged. Copy of the order be given Dasti on payment of usual charges. September 23, 2009 (RAKESH KUMAR GARG) ps JUDGE