Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vashist Goyal vs State Of Haryana on 24 April, 2023
2023:PHHC:057904
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CRM-M-18374-2023 (O&M)
Date of Decision:- 24.4.2023
Vashist Goyal ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana ...Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL
Present: Mr. Preetinder Singh Ahluwalia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Gurmeet Singh, AAG, Haryana.
assisted by ASI Ishwar.
*****
FIR NO. DATE POLICE STATION OFFENCES
43 28.11.2022 State Vigilance 409, 418, 420, 467,
Bureau, Gurugram, 468/120B IPC and 12,
District Gurugram 13(1)(c), 13(1)(d) read
with Section 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988
GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.
1. The petitioner seeks grant of regular bail in respect of the above mentioned
FIR.
2. As per the case of prosecution, the Estate officer, HUDA had put up SCO
No. 30, Sector 23/23-A, DSC Gurugram for auction in the year 1997 and the
same was allotted to its highest bidder i.e. M/s R.R. Foundation Engineering
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.04.27 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-18374-2023 (O&M) 2 2023:PHHC:057904
Private Limited on 27.11.1997 for an amount of Rs.39,52,000/-. A formal
allotment letter No. 288 dated 18.12.1997 was also sent by HUDA to M/s
R.R. Foundation Engineering Private Limited. However, the same was
received back with the report that no such company exists at the given
address. Consequently, the allotment amount of 15 percent required to be
deposited initially was not deposited by M/s R.R. Foundation Engineering
Private Limited and the allotment letter was cancelled on 10.4.1998.
Though, M/s R.R. Foundation Engineering Private Limited preferred an
appeal and also a revision against the said order but the same were dismissed
on 16.4.1999 and 28.2.2000. M/s R.R. Foundation Engineering Private
Limited also approached the District Consumer Redressal Forum, Gurugram
but remained unsuccessful even before the Forum. The appeal filed against
the judgment dated 1.8.2018 passed by the District Consumer Redressal
Forum was also dismissed by the State Consumer Disputes Redressal
Commission, Haryana on 30.11.2011.
3. One V.K.Goel, Attorney of Rishi Raj, Director, M/s R.R. Foundation
Engineering Private Limited filed CWP No. 12629 of 2016 and CWP No.
12653 of 2016 for getting the allotment restored in respect of SCO No. 30
and also SCO No. 8. During the pendency of the said writ petitions, the
GPA holder namely Shri V.K. Goel moved an application before the
government on 7.3.2018, which was sent to the office of the Chief
Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula.
4. It is further the case of prosecution that the Chief Administrator, HUDA vide
letter dated 122448 dated 15.6.2018 and e-mail dated 27.7.2018 directed the
Estate Officer, HSVP, Gurugram to investigate as to why the allotment letter
had not been received by M/s R.R. Foundation Engineering Private Limited
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.04.27 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-18374-2023 (O&M) 3 2023:PHHC:057904
and that in case the same had not been issued, then necessary steps be taken
in this regard after verification of the facts and it was directed that report be
submitted within three days. One e-mail to a similar effect was also sent to
the Administrator, HSVP, Gurugram. It is alleged that the Estate Officer
Mukesh Solanki, HUDA, Gurugram thereafter re-issued allotment letters
vide letter No. 739 and No. 740 dated 22.6.2018 and that too at the old price.
The order of re-allotment was issued by Ram Swaroop Verma, the then
Administrator, HUDA with the permission of the Chief Administrator,
HUDA. Thereafter, upon re-allotment of the plots, both the writ petitions
which were pending in the High Court had been withdrawn, having been
rendered infructuous. When copies of the orders passed by Hon'ble High
Court was received in the office of the Chief Administrator, HUDA,
comments were sought from the office of Administrator, HUDA, Gurugram
and then it came to be known that the allotment of SCO Nos. 8, 30 and 13
had been restored by Shri Mukesh Kumar Solanki, Estate Officer by
ignoring the rules of allotment and by exercising his position in connivance
with the accused including officials of HUDA. Later, when Mukesh Kumar
Solanki did not attend office for two days and additional charge of Estate
Officer-1, HUDA, Gurugram was handed over to Shri Bharat Bhushan
Gogia, Estate Officer-2 vide letter No. 349 dated 30.8.2018 then Shri Bharat
Bhushan Gogia, Estate Officer cancelled re-allotment vide letter No. 350
dated 30.8.2018. It is the case of prosecution that Mukesh Kumar Solanki in
connivance with Sajjan Singh, the then Section Officer, Shri Subhash
Chand, Deputy Superintendent, Shri Sanjay Kumar Clerk/Record Keeper
and in connivance with the firm and the GPA holder V.K.Goel had got the
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.04.27 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-18374-2023 (O&M) 4 2023:PHHC:057904
SCOs re-allotted despite dismissal of appeals/revisions and had caused
undue loss to government exchequer.
5. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has merely
acted as an Attorney of the allottees of the SCOs in question and cannot be
said to be beneficiary in any manner. It has further been submitted that the
requisite orders for restoration of allotment of SCOs in question had been
passed by the senior officials of HSVP upon examining the factual position
and the petitioner cannot be imputed any role in the same.
6. Opposing the petition, the learned State counsel submitted that since the
entire process of restoration of allotment was not in accordance with rules
and was irregular and the allotment had been restored on account of
extraneous consideration of illegal gratification which had passed through
the hands of the petitioner, his complicity is clearly evident. The learned
State counsel has, however, informed that the petitioner, as on date, has been
behind bars since the last about 3½ months. It has also been informed that
the petitioner stands involved in one more identical case.
7. This Court has considered rival submissions addressed before this Court.
8. As per the case of prosecution, the petitioner had played a material role in
getting the allotment restored by dubious means and had bribed the officials
of HSVP. However, this Court cannot lose sight of the fact that the
petitioner has been behind bars since the last about 3½ months.
Investigation qua the petitioner already stands concluded. Conclusion of
trial is likely to consume time inasmuch as 14 prosecution witnesses have
been cited and none has been examined so far. In these circumstances,
further detention of the petitioner will not serve any useful purpose.
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.04.27 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CRM-M-18374-2023 (O&M) 5 2023:PHHC:057904
9. The petition, as such, is accepted and the petitioner is ordered to be released
on regular bail on his furnishing bail bonds/surety bonds to the satisfaction
of learned trial Court/Chief Judicial Magistrate/Duty Magistrate concerned.
24.4.2023 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill )
kamal Judge
Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No
Whether Reportable Yes / No
KAMAL KUMAR
2023.04.27 10:22
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
