Yashpal vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Others

Lisa Gill, J.—The petitioner, in this case, had applied in November 2010 for allotment of a residential plot on freehold basis. The petitioner deposited a sum of Rs. 1,55,700/- i.e. 10% of the plot price as earnest money alongwith his application form. The draw of lots was held on 09.11.2011. It is alleged by the petitioner that as per information received by him from some property dealers, the petitioner was successful in draw and plot No. 334, Sector 6, Urban Estate, Rohtak was earmarked for him. However, the petitioner''s name did not find mention in the list of successful applicants and another applicant, Ravi Sharma-respondent No. 3, having registration No. RTK-6-06428 instead of RTK-6-02428 (registration number of the petitioner) was shown as successful qua Plot No. 334 in 8 marla category.

The petitioner filed an application under the Right to Information Act before the State Public Information Officer for providing the list of successful applicants in the draw of lots alongwith the DVD wherein the proceedings of the draw were recorded. The appeal was filed by the petitioner before the Chief Information Commissioner when the information was not supplied by the department. Vide letter dated 09.04.2012 (Annexure P-6) the petitioner was informed by the Public Information Officer that the list of successful applicants and videography cannot be given to him as it is a confidential record related to the department but he can see the list during the office hours in the office. Ultimately, the State Information Commission, Haryana vide order dated 06.02.2013, on an appeal filed by the petitioner, directed that the relevant CD be furnished to the appellant and a penalty of Rs. 25,000/- was imposed on the SPIO-cum-Deputy Superintendent Office of the Estate Officer, HUDA, Rohtak for the delay.

The petitioner in the present writ petition has averred that he was infact successful in the draw of lots held on 09.11.2011 and it is in an illegal manner that respondent No. 3 has been shown to be successful as an allottee qua plot No. 334, Sector 6, Rohtak.

In the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2 it is stated that wide publicity had been given for the draw of lots and the entire process of draw of lots was videographed. The detailed procedure followed by the authorities is narrated in para 1 of the preliminary objections. The draw of lots was conducted before the general public and children studying in the Government school were invited to pick up the stubs/coupons at the time of draw and each of the stub/coupon of the successful applicant having application number, registration number, name, father''s name and plot number was signed by the Committee members and were pasted in the stub registers. The said stubs/coupons were also counter checked by a person from the general public. It is further averred that it was the coupon of respondent No. 3, which was drawn and it was due to an oversight that registration No. 2428 was announced instead of registration No. 6428. The details regarding the said application number, name, father''s name, were, however, of respondent No. 3 and were correctly declared and the said stub was signed on the spot by the Committee members.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and on perusal of the record, we are of the considered view that the contention of the petitioner regarding wrongful destruction of the original CD etc. or that the CD supplied to him is a manipulated one, is liable to be rejected. It has come on record that when the list of successful applicants of 8 marla category was supplied to the petitioner on 30.10.2012, he had demanded to see the original CD of the videography of the draw of lots. At that point the photographer from Laxmi Studio, Rohtak, who had done the videography was contacted on telephone and he intimated that the coverage had been supplied in the form of CD and is considered to be the original record and no other kind of data regarding the draw has been saved with him.

The entire case of the petitioner rests on the premise that he was infact successful in the draw of lots held on 09.11.2011. The petitioner tries to draw sustenance for this averment on the ground that as the memory card etc. with the photographer is no longer available, therefore, the CD showing the proceedings of the draw cannot be relied upon.

No fault can be found on the part of the authorities in the conduct of the draw of lots held on 09.11.2011. The draw of lots was held in a fair and transparent manner. The petitioner was admittedly not present himself at the time of draw of lots and is stated to have received the alleged information from some property dealers. The fact that the memory card of the photographer is not available cannot be a ground to presume that the CD wherein the proceedings of the draw have been videographed is not authentic.

The facts of the case shows that there is no substance in the pleas raised by the petitioner. The writ petition is, thus, dismissed.