Blog

Case Title:-Mukesh Kumar Versus State of Harayana

Case No:- CRM-M-29883-2023

Decided on:-20-03-2024

Quorum:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANOOP CHITKARA

Facts of the case:-

The case’s basic facts are that, pursuant to section 17a of the pc act, the state government granted permission for the registration of an enquiry (number 07) dated 10.05.2019 in gurugram through letter no.58/52/2018-iv(1) dated 03.05.2019. Transmitted through the office of the director general of the state vigilance bureau, haryana panchkula, and the additional principal secretary of the haryana government’s vigilance department, against the petitioner/accused mukesh solanki estate officer, hud gurugram, and rishi raj, director of m/s r.r. Foundation engineering private limited, on may 10, 2019.

 That during the investigation, it was discovered that m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. Had applied to the huda department, sector 14, gurugram, to take part in the s.c.o. No. 08 and 30 open auctions in sector 23/23a, gurugram. Thereafter, due to highest bid of r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. Subsequently, on december 18, 1997, he was given s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 of r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd., for having the highest bid, and s.c.o. No. 13 of r.r. Construction, for having the highest bid, for sector 23, 23a, gurugram. 10% of the total cost was paid in cash at the location by the aforementioned company. 15% of the total was then required to be deposited within a month after the allotment letter’s issuing date. The huda department. Regarding this matter, huda, gurugram dispatched registered letters no. 284 and no. 285 to m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd and r.r., respectively, on december 18, 1997. Buildings, although the postal service returned these letters to the huda office stating that “no such company exists with this name and style at this address.” However, the aforementioned businesses’ offices are still situated at the same address as of right now. The 15% sum was not deposited by either of the aforementioned companies within the allotted time. Then, on 10.04.2018, estate officer -1, huda, sector-14, gurugram, forfeited 10% of the paid money and canceled the s.c.o. Nos. 08, 13, & 30 allotment orders in sector 23/23a, gurugram, via letter dated 10.04. 1998. The preceding the addresses of m/s r.r. Foundation engineers pvt. Ltd. And r.r. Constructions got the aforementioned orders and notices. The owners of m/s r.r. Foundation engineering pvt. Ltd. Company and r.r. Constructions thereafter attended the huda sector-14, gurgum office on april 15, 2018, and filed their applications to challenge the cancellation of the allocation.

 The application was submitted to the chief administrator of huda, haryana, panchkula, after first being reviewed by the estate officer, huda, gurgwarn, administrator, and gurugram. The changes and appeals were rejected all the way up to the commissioner and secretary of the haryana town and country planning department. On february 20, 2000, the revision petition was likewise dismissed. Following that, on october 8, 2004, m/s r.r. Foundation engineering pvt. Ltd. Filed a plea before the district consumer district redressal forum in gurugram; nevertheless, the same was however on august 1st, 2008, the same was also dismissed. On november 30, 2011, the state consumer dispute redressal commission denied the appeal as well. After that, they said nothing. On april 21, 2010, in ateli, district mahendergarh, rishi raj, director of r.r. Foundation pvt. Ltd., obtained a registered g.p.a. Of s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 in favor of sh. V.k. Goyal, son of r.c. Goyal, who resides at c.b.h. 11, narayana, new delhi. Rishi raj ceased to be the owner of the aforementioned scos as a result of their cancellation. In collusion with sh. V.k. Goyal and other defendants, rishi raj created false documentation and completed the g.p.a. Of the two aforementioned s.c.o.s in his favor.

Subsequently, about s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30, sector 23/23, gurugram, g.p.a. Subsequently, g.p.a. Holder sh. V.k. Goyal filed c.w.p. Nos. 12629/2016 and 8565 of 2018 in the hon’ble punjab and haryana high court in chandigarh, seeking re-allotment of both the aforementioned s.c.o. Nos. 08 and 30 in sector 23/23, gurugram. Hud a written declaration on merits was filed in this civil writ petitions. While the aforementioned cases were still before the hon’ble high court, on march 7, 2018, v.k. Goyal, the holder of the g.p.a., made a representation before the government. This was typically forwarded to the chief administrator’s office at hud, haryana, panchkula. The administrator of hu”a, panchkula has been downmarked for further action by the chief administrator of huda, panchkula. After that, the administrator at the time, sh. Ram swaroop verma.

Petitioner Contentions:-

Petitioner’s counsel Mr. Vinod Ghai, Sr. Advocate submits that petitioner is Unaware of the said case at the time of filing of present petition and as such this fact Was not concealed and otherwise it would have also no bearing in the present petition. Moreover, connected petition for bail relates to the aforesaid FIR. Coordinate Bench of this Court had granted interim Anticipatory bail and the said order remained continuing and on 01.09.2023, when the Matter listed before this court, interim order was extended when the petitioner Voluntarily stated that they would have no objection if this Court while extending the Interim order imposes any stringent conditions including declaration of assets of Petitioner as well as his spouse. Subsequently, on 14.09.2023, petitioner’s counsel Submitted that they have voluntarily complied with the order dated 01.09.2023 and Handed over the affidavits to the State counsel.

Respondent Contentions:-

Learned counsel for Respondent stated that On 22.02.2024, State counsel responded that he had accepted money Through his portal on 03.07.2018 without any authortization and symbolic possession Was given on 23.08.2018, whereas allotment was provisional. It was further informed That said allotment was cancelled on 30.08.2018 and symbolic possession was also Recalled and in fact allottee was never put in physical possession of the SCOs in question.

Court Analysis and Judgement:-

Court stated that in the analysis of the above arguments points out that petitioner was required to Wait for the final decision by CEO, when he was specifically asked, but he issued Provisional allotment, his malicious conduct is established when he handed over Symbolic possession of the property itself to the said beneficiaries. The another reason Which points towards the petitioner’s mis-conduct is that he was aware of the pendency Of the writ petitions and other civil proceedings and quietly ignored all such while Issuance of provisional allotment. As concerned for the inquiry on his part qua non-Delivery of letter to allottee, was part of proceedings before the Appellate Authority of HUDA as well as before Consumer Redressal Forum. The petitioner also ignored and by-Passed the judicial order passed by the authority and Consumer Court. Petitioner also seeks bail on the ground that no loss has been caused to the Government and the said argument is meaningless. If this argument is accepted, then Every government employee who commits such an act and where no loss caused to Government, would be entitled to bail which is neither the meaning within the Prevention of Corruption Act nor the provisions relating to cheating, forgery under Indian Penal Code. In fact the petitioner tried to avoid allotment from the CEO at Panchkula by ensuring that the matter is closed at Faridabad itself. Later on when the Writ petition which was filed by the beneficiaries was withdrawn, then the matter was Enquired by CEO Panchkula, which resulted in further enquiry and revealed the Malicious intent and participation of petitioner. petitioner fails To make a case for anticipatory bail. Any observation made hereinabove is neither an expression of opinion on the Case’s merits, neither the court taking up regular bail nor the trial Court shall advert to These comments. Given the serious nature of allegations and the apparent malicious intent of the Petitioner, he is not entitled to anticipatory bail. Petition dismissed. Interim orders stand vacated. All pending applications, if any, also Stand disposed.

“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”

Judgement Analysis Written by – K.Immey Grace