The Tribune, Chandigarh, India

NEWS AND VIEWS

PUNJAB

HARYANA

JAMMU & KASHMIR

HIMACHAL

REGIONAL BRIEFS

NATION

OPINIONS

LETTERS

BUSINESS

SPORTS

WORLD

SPECIAL COVERAGE

CHANDIGARH

LUDHIANA

DELHI

THE TRIBUNE SPECIALS

50 YEARS OF INDEPENDENCE

TERCENTENARY CELEBRATIONS

M A I N N E W S

HC sets aside allotment of plots to ex-MPs, MLAs
Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, February 19
Nearly five years after Haryana Urban Development Authority launched a group-housing scheme in seven cities, Punjab and Haryana High Court has set aside “allotment of plots to reserved categories of MPs and MLAs”.

The directions came on a bunch of three petitions by Param Vaibhav Cooperative Housing Society Limited and others. They had applied for the “benefit of allotment of housing plots in a group-housing scheme of 2005”, but had challenged HUDA’s decision of excluding their societies from consideration.

The ground for exclusion was ex-MPs and ex-MLAs in the society were not eligible for allotment; and if they were kept out of reckoning, the number of members in a society fell short of 10, the minimum required for consideration.

State counsel had initially contended that the eligibility criterion has been amended and “a specific insertion had been made that the reservation of plots for MPs and MLAs were restricted only to MPs and MLAs of the state of Haryana. “The members of the petitioners’ societies, being MPs and MLAs both past and present drawn from other states, were not entitled to consideration,” it was added.

After the petition was dismissed, the petitioners filed a special leave petition. Since the aspect “whether ex-MPs and ex-MLAs were entitled to the benefit of the group-housing scheme of 2005” had not been considered, the matter was directed to be decided afresh.

Taking up the matter, Justice K Kannan asserted: The group-housing scheme had plans for housing at Panchkula, Gurgaon, Faridabad, Panipat, Sonepat, Rewari and Palwal… The total number of plots reserved for preferential allotment was 16 and the exclusion of the petitioners’ societies completely without affording an opportunity to correct deficiencies was definitely unjustified… “In excluding the petitioners totally out of consideration, there had been a gross prejudice; and the allotment made already in so far as it has not given an opportunity to the petitioners after specific information of the exclusion of the ex-MPs and ex-MLAs was unjustified,” he said.

In his detailed order, Justice Kannan, however, did not agree to the petitioners’ contentions of discrimination. “From the list of those found eligible for allotment disclosed by the respondents, it is conceded even by the petitioners that no ex-MP and ex-MLA of even Haryana state or any other state has been considered. The petitioners cannot, therefore, complaint of any discrimination…”

Before parting with the orders, Justice Kannan asserted: The allotment of plots to the reserved categories of MPs and MLAs is alone set aside.

The petitioners’ societies shall be given an opportunity to submit forms by rectifying the deficiencies by excluding ex-MPs and ex-MLAs and resubmit within a specific period given by HUDA… “The eligibility shall be only for the MPS and MLAs, who held such status on the last date for application for allotment, namely on February 14, 2006.”