IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: December 18, 2008 Surinder Vaid and another …Petitioners Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Vikas Awasthy, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Ajay Kansal, Advocate, for the respondents. 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 prayer made in the instant petition is for issuance of direction to the respondents to issue transfer letter in respect of Plot No. 1019, Sector 7 (UE) Part-II, Kurukshetra, in favour of petitioner No. 2. A further prayer has also been made for issuance of direction C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 to respondent Nos. 1 to 3 to initiate appropriate legal as well as disciplinary action against respondent Nos. 4 and 5. 2. The allegations made in the instant petition are that petitioner No. 2 was asked to pay bribery of Rs. 2,000/- by respondent Nos. 4 and 5 in order to enable her to obtain a copy of the transfer letter in respect of the aforementioned plot and when she refused to succumb to the pressure then different transfer letter demanding extension fee of Rs. 11,340/- was issued. In that regard reliance has also been placed on the findings recorded by the Additional Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra on the complaint filed by the petitioners, in his order dated 21.2.2007 (P-4). The allegation leveled is that the Additional Deputy Commissioner never incorporated the last line in the order concluding that the allegation of bribery of Rs. 2,000/- against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have not been proved. Reliance has also been placed on the forwarding letter sent by the Deputy Commissioner, Kurukshetra, dated 26.2.2007 (P-5), which does not, in fact, in terms conclude that respondent Nos. 4 and 5 have been indicted for taking bribery of Rs. 2,000/-. 3. The stand of the respondents in their separate written statement is that in fact the petitioners have forged the transfer letter dated 11.10.2006 because they have deleted the amount of extension fee, which was mentioned in clause 9(e) of the letter as well as removed the tick marks which were put on condition Nos. 1, 2, 3 and 9. 2 C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 4. The petitioners have already set the machinery of criminal justice in motion against respondent Nos. 4 and 5 by filing a complaint before the Illaqua Magistrate, Kurukshetra, under Sections 166, 167, 409, 420, 217, 218, 500, 506, 499, 120-B IPC and Section 7, 12 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Likewise, respondent No. 4 has also filed a complaint dated 8.10.2007 (R-3) against both the petitioners and two others, in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kurukshetra. The matter with regard to allegations and counter allegations is already sub judice before the regular Court of law, which shall be decided in due course of time. 5. The only issue which remains to be examined by this Court is whether the petitioners are entitled to issuance of transfer letter in respect of Plot No. 1019, Sector 7, Part-II, Kurukshetra, which is to be issued in favour of petitioner No. 2. The stand of the respondents in that regard is that already such a letter has been issued on 11.10.2006 (R-2) and a copy of the postal information, dated 12.2.2007, has also been attached as Annexure R-1, showing that Surinder Vaid son of Shri Som Nath (petitioner No. 1) was delivered the aforementioned letter in original. The subject of letter dated 11.10.2006 (R-2) is ‘Provisionally Transfer permission of Residential/Commercial Plot No. 1019, Sector 7, Urban Estate, Kurukshetra through GPA Sh. Anil Kumar S/o Sh. Rajpal H. No. 111-A, Model Town, Karnal’. Transfer of plot in question has been made provisionally in favour of petitioner No. 2 subject to fulfillment of various conditions. Mr. Ajay Kansal, learned counsel for the 3 C.W.P. No. 10326 of 2007 respondents has also handed over another attested photocopy of the letter dated 11.10.2006 (R-2) to the learned counsel for the petitioners and stated that for all intents and purposes it should be considered as a copy of the provisional transfer permission. The aforementioned controversy also comes to an end. 6. In view of the statement made by the respondents through Mr. Ajay Kansal, it is for the petitioners now to take further steps. The period of 90 days will commence not from the date of communication of letter on 11.10.2006 but from today, which would be subject to any further charges in accordance with law. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 18, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 4