Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gulmohar Township India Pvt Ltd And … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 20 December, 2024
Author: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Bench: Mahabir Singh Sindhu
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 20th December, 2024
(1) CRWP-3500-2023 (O&M)
Gulmohar Township India Pvt. Ltd. and others ...Petitioners
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(2) CRWP-3499-2023 (O&M)
Parminder Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(3) CRM-M-20858-2023 (O&M)
Sunder Sham Arora ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and another ....Respondents
(4) CRM-M-22172-2023 (O&M)
Rajat Thamman ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(5) CRM-M-22206-2023 (O&M)
1
1 of 39
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2025 22:28:44 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
Ankur Choudhary ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(6) CRM-M-22207-2023 (O&M)
Davinderpal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(7) CRM-M-22225-2023 (O&M)
Joginder Singh Bhatia ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(8) CRWP-4289-2023 (O&M)
Surinderpal Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
(9) CRM-M-22178-2023 (O&M)
Sandeep Singh ...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab ....Respondent
(10) CWP-7424-2023 (O&M)
Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu ...Petitioner
2
2 of 39
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
Versus
State of Punjab and others ....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU
Present: Mr. Vikram Chaudhri, Senior Advocate, (through VC) assisted by
Ms. Hargun Sandhu, Advocate
Mr. Rishab Tewari, Advocate and
Ms. Nandini Gupta, Advocate
for the petitioner(s) in CRWP-3499-2023 & CRWP-3500-2023.
Mr. P.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate,
Mr. Agam Aggarwal, Advocate and
Mr. Jaiveer Singh, Advocate (through VC),
for the petitioner in CRM-M-20858-2023.
Mr. APS Deol, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Vishal R. Lamba, Advocate
Mr. Himmat Singh Deol, Advocate and
Mr. Arun Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s)
in CWP-7424-2023 and CRWP-4289-2023.
Dr. Anmol Rattan Sidhu, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. Shiv Kumar Sharma & Mr. Bhisham Kinger, Advocates,
for the petitioner(s) in CRM-M Nos.22206, 22207
& 22225 of 2023.
Mr. Abhimanyu Singh, Advocate for the petitioner
in CRM-M-22178-2023.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Senior Advocate, assisted by
Mr. HPS Sandhu, Advocate and
Mr. Shaurya Khanna, Advocate
for the petitioner(s)
in CRM-M-22172-2023.
Mr. Anurag Chopra, Addl. A.G, Punjab.
Mr. Parvez Chugh, Senior Panel Counsel with
Mr. Himanshu Setia, Advocate,
for respondent No.5-PSIDC in CWP-7424-2023.
Ms. Munisha Gandhi, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. A.D.S. Sukhija, Advocate and
Ms. Salina Chalana, Advocate for respondent No.4-PSIEC
in CRM-M-22206-2023; CRM-M-22207-2023;
CRM-M-22225-2023; CWP-7424-2023 and CRWP-4289-2023.
3
3 of 39
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
Mr. R.S. Bains, Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr. Loveneet Thakur, Advocate,
Mr. IPS Deol, Advocate;
Mr. Anmoldeep Singh, Advocate and
Mr. Tejas Bhardwaj, Advocates for intervener-Phillips Employees
Sangarsh Committee.
MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU, J.
Controversy involved in the aforesaid ten cases is similar in nature
and arising out of the same FIR; hence all the cases are being disposed off by this
common order.
2. For brevity, facts have been noticed from CRWP-3500-2023.
3. Present petition has been filed, under Article 226 of the Constitution
read with Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short,
“Code”) with the following prayers:-
(1) To quash FIR No.01 dated 05.01.2023, registered under
Sections 409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471and 120-B of Indian Penal
Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC“) and Section 13(1) (a) read with
Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (as
amended by Prevention of Corruption (Amendment) Act, 2018) (for
short, “PC Act“) at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-
1, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab qua the petitioner(s)
alongwith all consequential proceedings.
(2) To entrust the investigations emanating from and arising out
of FIR No. 1 dated 05.01.2023 (supra) to any independent
Investigating Agency like the Central Bureau of Investigation as no
free, fair or impartial investigations are expected from the
Respondent Nos. 3 & 4.
(3) Issue any other further writ(s), order(s) or direction(s) that this
Hon’ble Court may deem fit and proper in the facts and
circumstances of the case in favour of the petitioners.
4
4 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
4. BRIEF FACTS
4.1 It transpires that Government of Punjab acquired land measuring
157.99 acres situated in Village(s) Taraf Kumbra, Kambala, Kambali and Chilla,
Tehsil Kharar, District Ropar (now district Mohali) for Establishing Industrial
Focal Point at SAS Nagar (Mohali). Out of above 157.99 acres, the Government
transferred land measuring 80 acres to Punjab State Industrial Development
Corporation Ltd. (for short “PSIDC”). The PSIDC allotted plot No.1 (measuring
25 acres) in favour of Punjab Anand Lamp Industries Ltd. (for short “PALI Ltd.”)
“on freehold basis” for manufacturing GLS lamps and fluorescent tubes vide
Allotment Letter dated 30.07.1984. Thereafter, sale deed in this regard was
executed by the PSIDC in favour of PALI Ltd. on 22.05.1987.
4.2 Later on, the assets of PALI Ltd., including the aforementioned plot
No.1 were got amalgamated in Phillips India Ltd. under a ‘Scheme of
Amalgamation’ and which was duly accepted by the PSIDC. Upon recovering all
the dues from original allottee i.e. PALI Ltd., requisite ‘No-Dues Certificate’ was
issued in favour of Phillips India Ltd.
4.3 On 27.01.2016, under the order of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in
a ‘Scheme of Demerger’, the plot in question was transferred from Phillips India
Ltd. to Phillips Lighting India Ltd. and its name was subsequently changed to
Signify Innovations India Ltd. (for short “Signify Innovations Ltd.”).
4.4 Vide notification(s) dated 21.12.2017 & 27.11.2020, Punjab Small
Industries & Export Corporation (for short “the PSIEC”) was conferred full rights
for all intents and purposes, namely, development/allotment/transfer/maintenance
etc. of all industrial parks/industrial sheds/industrial focal points etc. in the State
5
5 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
of Punjab in place of Punjab Information Communication & Technology
Corporation Limited and PSIDC.
4.5 On 17.11.2020, Signify Innovations Ltd. requested PSIDC to grant
permission for the sale of Plot No. 1, Phase IX, Mohali in favour of Gulmohar
Township India Pvt. Ltd. (for short “Gulmohar Township”) and in pursuance
thereof, necessary “No Due Certificate” was issued.
4.6 Thereafter, vide sale-deed dated 25.02.2021, Signify Innovations
Ltd. sold the Plot in question to Gulmohar Township for a sale consideration of
Rs. 110 Crore.
4.7 On 03.03.2021, the Gulmohar Township requested PSIEC to update
their records and transfer the ownership rights regarding above plot in its favour
and after receiving payment of Rs. 12.10 lakh as processing fees, which was duly
accepted on 15.03.2021 by the PSIEC, ownership rights were transferred in
favour of the Gulmohar Township.
4.8 On 16.03.2021, the Gulmohar Township applied to PSIEC for
bifurcation/fragmentation of the industrial plot No.1 into 125 smaller plots after
paying requisite fees of Rs.27,83,000/-.
4.9 Thereafter, on 24.03.2021, as per the Policy dated 08.02.2005,
PSIEC allowed bifurcation/fragmentation of the industrial plot No.1 {measuring
25 acres; 1,21,000 sq. yards} into 125 plots of different sizes.
4.10 From 08.09.2021 onwards, out of 125 plots approved by PSIEC, 122
plots were sold in open market by the Gulmohar Township after obtaining ‘No-
Dues Certificate’ and paying requisite feess of 3% per plot to PSIEC.
4.11 At this stage, certain allegations were levelled regarding undue
benefit etc. in favour of the Gulmohar Township on account of
6
6 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
transfer/bifurcation of plot No.1 and which were duly inquired into by the
Departmental Committee of PSIEC, but the same were found to be baseless vide
report dated 05.10.2021.
4.12 Later on, the Vigilance Bureau registered FIR in question with the
following allegations:
“Punjab Government had allotted 25 acres of land to Anand Lamps
Limited through a sale deed in 1987 with the intention of setting up
the industry in Punjab, which was later transferred to Signify
Innovations. Signify Innovations obtained NOC from PSIDC and
sold the plot to Gulmohar Township through sale deed. Sh. Sundar
Sham Arora, then Industry & Commerce Minister forwarded a letter
dated 17.03.2021 to MD, PSIEC regarding bifurcation of plots. On
18.03.2021, as per application of Gulmohar Township Private
Limited, Mrs. Neelima I.A.S. MD PSIEC, constituted a committee
consisting of Executive Director, CGM, (Estate/Finance), Technical
Consultant, CGM (Planning), GM (Personnel), XEN Concerned,
Estate Officer-1, DTP, ATP, SDE Mohali to examine the request of
Gulmohar Township Private Limited. Committee consisted of (1) SP
Singh, ED (2) Ankur Chaudhary, Estate Officer (3) Bhai Sukhdip
Singh Sidhu (4) Davinderpal Singh, GM Personnel (5) Tejveer Singh
DTP, (Deceased) (6) JS Bhatia CGM Planning (7) Ashima
Aggarwal, ATP Planning (8) Parminder Singh, Executive Engineer
(9) Rajat, DA and (10) Sandeep Singh, SDE were involved. On
19.03.2021 this noting arrived at office of S.P. Singh. On account of
holiday on 20/21.03.2021, all the members of the committee passed
the proposal to bifurcate 125 plots from 12 plots on 22.03.2021
without taking into consideration Proposal report, Project report
articles of association, memorandum of association and without
NOC of Pollution Control Board, Municipal Corporation, Electricity
Board, Forest Department, fire brigade etc. as well as without
getting map passed from any architect passed the proposal to
bifurcate 125 plots from 12 plots from page number 133 to 142 of
the noting even though Gulmohar Township Pvt. Ltd. has no relation
with the industry. On examination by the Forensic Science
Laboratory, it has been found that page numbers 141 and 142 of the
noting do not match with the rest of the page. The said committee
members have placed fake documents and did not scrutinize the
application thoroughly. According to the deed of the year 1987, this
plot was to be used only for industrial purposes. The said Gulmohar
township has no such background. According to the rules of the
Corporation, from the year 1987, a fees of Rs.20/- per yard and
Rs.3/- per year was to be levied at the rate of Rs.125/- per yard,
which is a total of 1,21,000 square yards and a total of
Rs.1,51,25,000 while Gulmohar Township had remitted a total of7
7 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
Rs.27,83,000/- attached with already made Pay Order application
while none of this was demanded by PSIEC. Due to which the
Punjab Government has incurred a financial loss of Rs.1,23,42,000/-
, if this plot had been sold as per the instructions/rules of the
Government, the Government would have received an income of
Rs.500 to 700 Crores. At the time of sale of 125 plots by Gulmohar
Township, no project report, articles of association, memorandum of
association was obtained from any buyer party and plots were sold
only on the basis of IT. By doing this, the above committee members,
Mrs. Neelima I.A.S., MD PSIEC, Sunder Sham Arora, Ex-Minister of
Punjab colluded with each other and misused his position to give
unfair advantage to Gulmohar Township Company
Owners/Directors Jagdeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh Siran, Mr. Pritam
Singh residents of House No. 1543, Sector 36-D Chandigarh and
Rakesh Kumar Sharma Son Mr. Rameshwar Das Surma, resident of
House No. 288, Sector 33-A, Chandigarh. By doing this Sir/Mr. S.P.
Singh ED, Ankur Chaudhary Estate Officer, Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu
CGM Estate & Finance, Davinderpal Singh GM, Personnel, JS
Bhatia CGM, Planning, Ashima Aggarwal ATP Planning,
Parminder Singh Executive Engineer, Rajat DA, Sandeep Singh
SDE, Neelima I.A.S., MD PSIEC, Sunder Sham Arora Ex-Minister
Punjab & Gulmohar Township India Pvt.Ltd: Sector 34 Chandigarh
Proprietor/Directors Jagdeep Singh, Gurpreet Singh and Rakesh
Kumar Sharma have committed offence under Sec 13 (1) (a) R/W 13
(2) PC Act, 1988 as amended by P.C. (Amendment) Act, 2018 and
409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471, 120-ΒIPC. Therefore, a ruqa is sent
through Chief Constable Navdeep Singh No. 1035 Police Station
SAS Nagar Mohali to Vigilance Bureau Phase-1 Punjab at Mohali to
register a case under these sections. If role of any other person
comes to light during the investigation, then his role will also be
considered during the investigation of this case. A case under the
said sections should be registered against the said accused and FIR
should be sent to me as well as special reports should be issued.
Sd/- Barinder Singh Gill,
DSP (Vig. Bureau), Ph.1
Punjab at Mohali”
4.13 Hence present petitions.
CONTENTIONS
5.1 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-GULMOHAR TOWNSHIP
IN CRWP-3500-2023
5.1.1 Learned Senior counsel contends that petitioner No.1-Gulmohar
Township is a Real Estate Company engaged in the business of residential and
8
8 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
commercial properties in Chandigarh; whereas petitioner Nos.2 to 4, namely,
Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Gurpreet Singh and Jagdeep Singh are its Directors.
5.1.2 Further contends that consequent upon the registration of sale deeds
regarding 125 bifurcated/fragmented plots and upon payment of transfer fees to
the tune of Rs.4.45 Crore and bifurcation/fragmentation fees of Rs. 27.83 lakh
substantial revenue has been earned by the State of Punjab as well as PSIEC.
5.1.3 Still further contends that requisite permissions/NOCs/Licenses from
concerned regulatory authorities/different Government Departments/Agencies
were obtained by purchaser/transferee-Gulmohar Township and while allowing
permissions, PSIEC had laid down stringent conditions for compliance of rules &
regulations.
5.1.4 Also contends that no relaxation in any manner was given to the
petitioner-Gulmohar Township qua adherence to the zoning plan and/or building
bye-laws applicable for raising of construction.
5.1.5 Again contends that in the month of March-2022, a new government
was formed and a vigilance enquiry was opened due to vested interests. Further
contends that in response to the queries of Vigilance Bureau to the Department of
Industries, on 15.12.2022, it ratified all the actions taken by PSIEC with respect
to transfer/bifurcation of plot in question in favour of petitioner-Gulmohar
Township and the same were found to be genuine.
5.1.6 Yet again contends that calculation of amount of Rs.1,51,25,000/- as
less bifurcation/fragmentation fees by the Vigilance Bureau is absolutely wrong
and hypothetical; Vigilance Bureau has come up with a concocted figure for loss
of Rs.500/700 Crore in its alleged source report, which is preposterous and based
on assumption that PSIEC should have cancelled the allotment of plot in
9
9 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
question. Also contends that till date, PSIEC has not raised any demand and/or
grievance with regard to shortfall of any bifurcation/fragmentation fees.
5.1.7 Specifically contends that plot in question is a freehold private
property and government or PSIEC or PSIDC has no right on the said property,
except regulating its use for industrial purpose and to follow the Estate
Management Rules. The plot in question was directly purchased by Gulmohar
Township in an open market from a private entity.
5.1.8 Vehemently contends that allegations of substituting/replacing
noting pages from file are baseless and false. None of the Committee Members
and/or Managing Director, PSIEC have claimed that their signatures are forged.
Also contends that a bare perusal of the records reveals that there is no material
on record to link the Committee Members, with any act of forgery, cheating
and/or giving any undue benefit to the petitioner-Gulmohar Township.
5.1.9 Still further contended that present case has been registered without
following the mandate of Section 17A of the PC Act, which requires previous
approval for initiating enquiry/inquiry/investigation against the public servant.
Despite categoric response by the Industries Department, nullifying each and
every requisitions, in a tearing hurry and undue haste, present FIR has been
registered by the Vigilance Bureau and there are gross irregularities in the entire
process of registration of FIR.
5.1.10 Lastly contended that present FIR along with all consequential
proceedings, is a complete misuse of process of law; hence liable to be quashed
and set aside qua the petitioner(s).
10
10 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
5.2 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-SUNDER SHAM ARORA
IN CRM-M-20858-2023
5.2.1 Learned counsel contends that at relevant time, petitioner Sunder
Sham Arora was a Minister of Industries & Commerce, Government of Punjab,
but present FIR has been registered due to political vendetta and allegations are
totally false and baseless.
5.2.2 Further contends that solitary allegation against petitioner is that on
17.03.2021, he had written a letter to the then Managing Director of PSIEC for
seeking information regarding the bifurcation/fragmentation of plots.
5.2.3 Also contends that criminal liability cannot be fastened upon the
petitioner merely on account of the fact that he had written a letter to the M.D,
PSIEC for seeking information regarding bifurcation/fragmentation of industrial
plots in his official capacity.
5.2.4 Still further contends that statement of one Ravinder Kumar Bansal,
Tehsildar, Revenue Department, was recorded, wherein it was alleged that
petitioner had made a call to him for registration of the sale deed in favour of
Gulmohar Township. The aforesaid statement was recorded by the Investigating
Agency and except that, there is no material whatsoever to connect the petitioner
with alleged offence.
5.3 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER(S)- SURINDERPAL SINGH AND
BHAI SUKHDEEP SINGH SIDHU IN CRWP-4289-2023 & CWP-
7424-2023.
5.3.1 Learned Senior counsel contends that present FIR was registered
against 14 persons, including petitioners on 05.01.2023 and petitioner-
Surinderpal Singh (in CRWP-4289-2023) was posted as Executive Director;
whereas petitioner-Bhai Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu (in CWP-7424-2023) was
11
11 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
working as Chief General Manager (Estate), PSIEC and both of them were
Members of Departmental Committee.
5.3.2 Also contends that both the above petitioners are having clean
service record and they worked with PSIEC, with full dedication. Both of them
appeared before the Vigilance Bureau and provided all the information relating to
the bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question.
5.3.3 Again contends that petitioner-Bhai Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu (in
CWP-7424-2023) was promoted as Chief General Manager in the year 2018 and
he was on deputation with the Punjab Government.
5.3.4 Lastly contended that petitioner-Surinderpal Singh (in CRWP-4289-
2023) was arrested from cremation ground on 07.01.2023, while performing last
rites of his father.
5.4 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER(S)- JOGINDER SINGH BHATIA,
DAVINDER PAL SINGH AND ANKUR CHOUDHARY
IN CRM-M-22225-2023, CRM-M-22207-2023 & CRM-M-22206-2023
5.4.1 Learned Senior counsel contends that petitioners being Chief
General Manager (Planning), General Manager (Personnel) and Estate Officer,
PSIEC, respectively, were Members of the Committee, and granted approval on
24.03.2021 for bifurcation/fragmentation of the industrial plot in question.
5.4.2 Further contends that due procedure was followed while fragmenting
the plot in question, as per policy decision of the PSIEC and allegations levelled
against the petitioners were found to be false, frivolous and baseless by the
Departmental Committee in its report dated 05.10.2021.
5.4.3 Still further contends that allegations regarding loss of Rs.500-700
Crore to the State exchequer are based on surmises and imagination in view of the
12
12 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
fact that plot in question was a freehold property and has been purchased by
Gulmohar Township from M/s Signify Innovations Ltd.
5.4.4 Vehemently contends that baseless allegations have been levelled
regarding the fabrication of official records at page(s) No.141 and 142 of
proceedings while approving the bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question.
5.4.5 Again contends that relevant policies/rules were duly followed and a
detailed reply was given to the Vigilance Bureau by the Industries Department,
but ignoring the same, present FIR has been registered against the petitioners and
other co-accused due to political vendetta.
5.4.6 Lastly contended that provisions of Section 17(A) of PC Act have
been violated, in as much as no sanction was obtained by the Vigilance Bureau
before initiating the prosecution against petitioners.
5.5 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-PARMINDER SINGH
IN CRWP-3499-2023
5.5.1 Learned Senior counsel contends that petitioner-Parminder Singh
was working as Executive Engineer, PSIEC and he was merely a member of the
Departmental Committee, which granted approval on 24.03.2021 for
bifurcation/fragmentation of the plot in question in favour of Gulmohar
Township.
5.5.2 Further contends that present FIR is liable to be quashed and set
aside qua petitioner-Parminder Singh, apart from quashing the action of
respondents in arresting and remanding him to police/judicial custody.
5.6 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-SANDEEP SINGH
IN CRM-M-22178-2023
5.6.1 Learned counsel for the petitioner adopts the arguments advanced by
learned Senior counsel for petitioners- Joginder Singh Bhatia, Davinder Pal Singh
13
13 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
& Ankur Choudhary and contends that petitioner being a Sub Divisional
Engineer, PSIEC was Member of the Committee, which granted approval for
bifurcation/fragmentation of plot(s).
5.7 ON BEHALF OF PETITIONER-RAJAT THAMMAN
IN CRM-M-22172-2023.
5.7.1 Learned Senior counsel for the petitioner contends on similar lines as
advanced by learned Senior counsel for petitioners-Joginder Singh Bhatia,
Davinder Pal Singh & Ankur Choudhary and further contends that petitioner
being a Dealing Assistant, was merely a Member of the same Committee.
6.1 ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-STATE OF PUNJAB
6.1.1 Per contra, learned counsel for the State submits that present FIR
has been registered on the basis of source information report and the plot in
question measuring 25 acres was initially allotted for Industrial purposes to PALI
Ltd. in 1984, on concessional rates for setting up an industrial unit to generate
revenue for the State, but they miserably failed to do so.
6.1.2 Further submits that PSIDC gave ‘No-Objection Certificate’ to sell
the above plot and it was sold to Private Developer i.e. Gulmohar Township
against the terms of allotment and it was fraudulently bifurcated/fragmented into
125 smaller plots by the petitioner and other co-accused without following due
process of law.
6.1.3 Still further submits that during the course of investigation and from
the police report, it has come on record that official records have been tampered
by the petitioners as well as other co-accused, inasmuch as Page Nos. 141 & 142
of original noting file were manipulated and fabricated.
14
14 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
6.1.4 Again submits that CPU of the Computer in which the file has been
stored was taken away from the office in order to destroy the evidence, which
shows the malicious intention of petitioners.
6.1.5 Vehemently submits that bifurcation/fragmentation fees paid by
Gulmohar Township was grossly inadequate; as according to the rules of PSIDC,
bifurcation/fragmentation was to be calculated at Rs.20 per square yards along
with an annual fees of Rs.3 per square yards, for a total of Rs.125 per square
yards and total area of plot in question being 1,21,000 square yards, the
bifurcation/fragmentation fees should have been calculated @ Rs.1,51,25,000/-;
but to the contrary, Gulmohar Township paid only Rs.27,83,000/- (calculating
own their own); thus, caused a financial loss of Rs.1,23,43,000/- to the State
exchequer.
6.1.6 Yet again submits that, had the plot been sold after adopting due
procedure, the Government must have earned Rs 500 to 700 Crore, and as such,
there is substantial loss caused to State exchequer by petitioners in collusion with
other co-accused.
6.1.7 Further submits that even prior to grant of NOC and approval for
bifurcation/fragmentation of plots, the Gulmohar Township was so sure that
approval would be granted; thus, started selling plots to customers and in lieu
thereof, earned a sum of Rs.27 Crore (approximately) on different dates. Also
submits that Gulmohar Township is only a Real Estate Developer and does not
have any expertise in industrial development; thus, it is a pre-arranged plan and
unholy nexus amongst petitioners as well as other co-accused.
6.1.8 Lastly submits that there are disputed questions of facts involved;
hence present petition(s) for quashing of FIR along with consequential
15
15 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
proceedings are not maintainable while exercising jurisdiction under Section 482
Cr.P.C and/or Article 226 of the Constitution. In support of the above
submissions, learned State counsel has placed reliance on the following judicial
precedents:-
1. Neeharika Infrastructure Pvt. Ltd. Vs. State of
Maharashtra and others 2021 SCC Online SC 315;
2. Kaptan Singh Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others,
(2021) 9 SCC 35;
3. Priyanka Yadav Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2022 (2) RCR
(Crl.) 334;
4. Serious Fraud Investigation Officer Vs. Sahara Housing
Investment Corporation Ltd., 2022 (9) SCC 794; and
5. State of Chhattisgarh Versus Aman Kumar Singh, (2023)
6 SCC 559.
6.2. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-PSIDC
6.2.1 Learned counsel submits that the property in question was allotted to
PALI Ltd. on 30.07.1984 and sale-deed in this regard was executed on
22.05.1987. Further submits that as per Clause-4 of the Allotment Letter dated
30.07.1984, no bifurcation/fragmentation of property in question was allowed,
but he acknowledged that later on, Policy dated 08.02.2005 was framed for
bifurcation/fragmentation of such plots in the State of Punjab.
6.2.2 Also submits that “No-Objection Certificate” dated 27.11.2020 was
granted to Signify Innovations Ltd. on the same terms and conditions as were
applicable in the sale-deed dated 22.05.1987.
6.2.3 Lastly submits that vide notification(s) dated 21.12.2017 &
27.11.2020, the PSIEC had been conferred full rights for all intents and purposes,
namely, development/allotment/transfer/maintenance etc. of all industrial
16
16 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
parks/industrial sheds/industrial focal points etc. in the State of Punjab in place of
Punjab Information Communication & Technology Corporation Limited and
PSIDC.
6.3. ON BEHALF OF THE RESPONDENT-PSIEC
6.3.1 Learned counsel submits that petitioner(s) is/are mainly aggrieved
against the action of State/Police/Vigilance Bureau; hence PSIEC is not the
contesting party in the present matter.
6.4. ON BEHALF OF THE INTERVENER/PHLLIPS EMPOYEES
SANGHARSH COMMITTEE
6.4.1 Learned Senior counsel submits that permission was granted for
dividing a plot of 25 acres into 125 plots of different sizes, in complete disregard
of the policies framed by the Government of Punjab just to confer unlawful
benefit in favour of the petitioners.
6.4.2 Further submits that no bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question,
was allowed under the rules and it is to be used only for industrial purposes; thus
there has been violation of Punjab Regional and Town Planning and
Development Act, 1995 (for short “PAPRA”).
6.4.3 Lastly submits that there was an unholy nexus between petitioner-
Sunder Sham Arora, being the then Cabinet Minister and some other Government
officials, which has caused huge financial loss to the State exchequer.
7. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the paper-book(s).
8. DISCUSSION AND OBSERVATIONS
8.1 Although, an objection was raised by learned State counsel that
disputed questions of facts are involved in the present petition(s); therefore,
quashing petition(s) are not maintainable; but the objection is liable to be rejected
17
17 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
in view of the order dated 05.04.2023 passed in Writ Petition (Criminal) No. 91
of 2023 and relevant part of the same reads as under:-
“11 The above facts do prima-facie make out a case for interference
but looking into the fact that various factual aspects require
consideration in depth, we deem it appropriate to relegate the
petitioner of any other person who may be aggrieved in this regard to
approach the High Court invoking its extra-ordinary jurisdiction.
conferred by Article 226 of the Constitution of India read with section
482 Cr.P.C. for quashing the FIR.
12 We further request the High Court that in case any such petition
is filed to take up the same for hearing and disposal including a prayer,
if any, made for interim relief, in accordance with law expeditiously.
13 Considering the peculiar facts and circumstances of this case,
we further direct that all further proceedings arising out of and
emanating from the impugned FIR as well as coercive actions shall
remain stayed for a period of four weeks from today. The extension of
the interim relief granted by us or any other interim relief which may be
warranted in the facts and circumstances of the case may be sought
from the High Court, in case the aggrieved parties decide to approach
the High Court.”
8.2 It is noteworthy that during the course of hearing, complaint dated
21.06.2021 (Mark-Z) made by one “Navjot Singh-congressman” was produced
on record by the Vigilance Bureau. As this complaint shall have bearing for
adjudication of the matter in controversy, therefore, the same is recapitulated
here-as-under:-
“To
Hon’ble Justice Mehtab Singh Gill
Punjab State Chief Vigilance Commissioner,
SAS NagarSubject: Fraud approx. Rs. 620.00 Crores by forging
documents/making unauthorized alterations/changing18
18 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
documents/noting sheets, add 5 at the last of 12 plots (2 acres)
bifurcated plots and converted into = 125 plots (76 plots-500 sq. yds
+ 49 plots of 1000 sq. yds and above plots).
Sir,
Plot No. 1 Phase-IX, Mohali (27 acres), came for bifurcation
into 12 plots (2 acres each and rest of area for green
belts/roads/basic amenities (Annexure ‘1’), but Sh. S.P. Singh,
Executive Director (holding portfolio of Estate, Planning, Finance &
Accounts, Raw Material, Personnel, CVO, Policy) and dealing
Assistant, PSIEC have cleaverly forged documents/making
unauthorised alterations in record/changing documents/noting
sheets submitted request and plan by M/s Gulmohar originally for 12
plots (Annexure-1) but they add 5 at the last of 12 plots and
converted 12 plots into 125 plots (49 plots of 1000 sq. yds. and above
and 76 plots of 500 sq. yds. (Annexure ‘II’). Before forging Plot
Number was allotted1-A, 1-В, 1-С…. but after forging plot No.
allotted as 1/1, 1/2,……… 1/125, a new Industrial Township have
been developed in Phase-IX, Mohali, changed the master plan of SAS
Nagar, without obtaining approval from
CTP/MC/PSPCL/PPCB/WaterSupply & Sewerage/RERA and also
approval of Hon’ble Chief Minister.
Brief facts:
The Industrial Plot No. A-1, Phase IX, Mohali measuring 25
acres was acquired by Industries Department for Punjab State
Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC) to boost the industry
in the State of Punjab through its subsidiaries. The purpose of
PSIDC is to enhance/ financially assist the Industrialists of Punjab
State by loaning through SIDBI/IDBI. PSIDC transferred the 27
acres of land on subsidised rates to M/s Punjab Anand Lamps
Limited (Philips). This plot was a free hold plot, no Allotment letter
was issued to M/S Anand Lamp and only transferred on the terms
and conditions made in the Sale deed dated 12.05.1987 by PSIDC
(III).
19
19 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
The plot was purchased by M/s. Gulmohar Township Pvt. Ltd.
amounting to Rs. 120.00 Crores. The payment was made by M/s
Gulmohar Township after selling the small pieces of land of this plot
through Biana and paid the amount including enhancement and
processing fees to the Govt. agencies as well as seller.
PSIDC has issued NOC to M/s Gulmohar Township Ltd. on
17.11 2020 with the condition that the plot was sold only for setting
up of Industrial Unit, so new purchaser is also bound to use the
land only in accordance with the conditions laid down in sale deed
dated 22.05.1987, should be abide building law
rules/admissible/applicable to such area(IV):
Sale deed dated 22.05.1987 reproduced as below:
The company shall use the said land exclusively for the
purpose of establishing their project(s) or any such other
purpose as the Government may approve and for no other
purpose.
Comply all the terms and conditions stipulated by the
Government.
In the event of the company being wound up whether
compulsorily or voluntarily, save for the purpose of
amalgamation or reconstructions, or Company failing to
obtain the Government’s or Corporation’s permission to
transfer the said land, the Corporation may take over the
said land alongwith superstructures thereon, or the said land
only after allowing the removal of superstructures thereon,
and the cost of such removal shall be borne by the party
which has raised it.
The work of Industrial Plots of Punjab Infotech &
Department of Industries & Commerce had been transferred to
PSIEC vide Notification dated 21.12.2017 with the approval of
Hon’ble Chief Minister/CMM (V).
20
20 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
On the recommendations SP Singh, the work of
approval of Building Plans had been taken back in PSIEC at the
level of ICM, but interestingly, the application submitted by the MIA
where decision has been taken, not signed by any of the MIA
Members and the approval of Building plans were transferred to
PSIEC by the Industries & Commerce Minister.
The plots/subsidiaries of PSIDC transferred to PSIEC without
approval of the Hon’ble CM (VI).
As per record, file movement as under:
XIV. Sh. Rajat Thamman, Dealing Assistant had put up a note to
transfer the record from PSIDC to PSIEC on 03.03.2021 and the
proposal was approved on 05.03.2021, on very same day letter was
issued.
XV. Registered deed of M/s Anand Lamp was handed over to
Dealing Assistant on 09.03.2021.
XVI. On 10.03.2021 (Wednesday), dealing assistant proposed that
before proceeding further to change the title deed, M/s Gulmohar
Township may be conveyed some deficiencies i.e. Affidavit,
processing fees, list of directors, shareholders, BOD resolution of
the company, Notary attested copy of sale deed to be conveyed to
M/s Gulmohar, proposal approved on 12.03.2021 (Friday).
XVII. But no deficiency conveyed to M/s Gulmohar Township on
12.03.2021nor thereafter. But after completing the record, File was
re-submitted for transfer on 12.03.2021 (Friday) by Sh. Rajat and
the proposal was approved on 15.03.2021 (Monday), allotment letter
was also issued on 15.03.3021 vide No. PSIEC/Estate/21504-508
dated 15.03.2021 (VII).
XVIII. As per clause 2 of the allotment letter (PSIEC/Estate/21504-
508 dated 15.03.2021), the purchaser shall ensure to commence
production after complete construction factory building within
overall period of 03 years from the date of issuance of this letter.
The purchaser shall produce permanent SSI Registration Certificate
issued by General Manager, District Industries Centre Mohali.
21
21 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
XIX. The request for bifurcation of plot No. 1 received from M/s
Gulmohar Township India Pvt. Ltd. In PSIEC on 16.03.3021, on his
request he has not mentioned that how many plots he wanted to
bifurcate (1).
XX. On 17.03.2021 Industries & Commerce Minister sought report
regarding pending cases of bifurcation of plots and transfer of plots
till 16.03.2021 with the direction that the report should reach to him
by 18.03.2021 (VIII)
XXI. On 17.03.2021 (Wednesday) Sh. Rajat proposed a committee
comprising of officials/officers of PSIEC – Dealing Assistant
(himself), Sub-Divisional Engineer (Mohali), Assistant Town
Planner Estate Officer-I, District Town Planner. Executive
Engineer-II, General Manager (Personnel), Chief General Manager
(Planning), Chief General Manager (Estate & Finance) & Executive
Director respectively to bifurcate the Plot No. A-1 (25 acres), the
proposal was approved on 18.03.2021 (Thursday).
XXII. No officer of PSIDC was involved in the committee whereas
the plot in question relates to PSIDC.
XXIII. Notice for attending the meeting to bifurcate the plot has not
been issued to the Committee members, it is also not understood that
when and where meeting was held.
XXIV. Vide No. PSIEC/CGM (E)/1708 dated 19.03.2021,
recommendations of the Committee were put up for approval.
XXV. On the demand raised by Industrial Association/allottees of
different focal points on different occasions for allowing
bifurcation/fragmentation of already allotted industrial plots. The
need for considering bifurcation has emanated from: (IX)
v) Family dispute
vi) Death of the allottee & sub-division amongst heirs
vii) Unit having gone Sick
viii) Financial constraints of the allottee
22
22 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
The above Agenda Item No. 7 was placed before the BoDs of PSIEC
held on 21.06.2004, the BoDs considered the agenda and resolved as
under:
“The Board further resolved to allow bifurcation/fragmentation of
industrial plots in all the focal points as detailed in the agenda
item. However, the same will not be applicable in any of Phases of
Focal Point Mohali (SAS Nagar)” (X)
XXVI. The case for allowing bifurcation/fragmentation in industrial
focal point Mohali was again placed before BoDs meeting held on
08.02.2005 at 2.30 PM vide Agenda Item No.10 read (XI)
………………Accordingly, it is proposed that the facility to allow
bifurcation/fragmentation of industrial plots may also be extended to
the industrial plot holders of focal point Mohali on the patter that
already allowed in other areas.
The BoDs of the Corporation considered the agenda and resolved as
under:
“Resolved to allow bifurcation/fragmentation of Industrial plots
(excepting semi-developed pocket in different Focal Points
including Mohali in the sizes 1000 sq. yds and above by charging
the fees as proposed in the agenda with the condition that no
fragmented/bifurcated portion(s) should be below 400 sq. yds.(XII)The proposal at ‘XX’ on pre-page was approved on 23.03.2021. But
on pre- page No ‘XX’ is available.
The proceedings of the Committee are not available on record,
they have bifurcated 12 plots of around 2 acres each and rest of
the land left for green belts/basic amenities etc. But Mr. S.P.
Singh and dealing assistant forged documents bifurcated 12 plots
into 125 plots, Green belts/road connectivity, water connectivity,
sewerage connectivity, load on traffic etc. were not examined and
issued 125 NOC for sale to the purchaser after getting 5000/-
processing fees as applicable as per Policy of the PSIEC.
23
23 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
In a similar case of 15 acres of land acquired by PSIDC for M/s
Harpartap Steel Limited at Phase-IX, Mohali, with the approval
of Hon’ble Chief Minister, a Policy was formulated and the
project was approved as Mega Project, MoU was signed between
State Government and M/s Bestech. The project was also
transferred to PSIEC and the officers of PSIEC well aware about
this.
The transfer/bifurcation/allotments of 12 plots after forging
converted into 125 plots ever first time in the history of PSIEC
are done in a very short span of time which is really surprising.
The Policy for bifurcation was only to divide the land equally
among the family members to avoid dispute, death cases, sick
units not for the new transferee who have purchased the plots in a
day before without following the policy/guidelines.
In the Industrial Policy issued by Govt. of Punjab from time to
time, applicable to all industrial units, there is no provision in
the policy to bifurcate/fragment the plots in any of the focal
points (copy enclosed)-(XIII)
The last e-auction price of the Industrial plot at Mohali went
upto Rs. 70000 per sq. yard. and PSIEC sold the plots on the e-
auction price. But M/s Gulmohar Township Pvt. Ltd. is selling/sold
the plots @ Rs. 50,000/- per sq. yds, the formula is as under:
Plot above 1000 sq. yds-49, marketing price amounting to Rs.
50,000/- per sq. yds =(1000 sq. yds. X 50,000/- =5.00 Crore
i.e, 49X5.00 Crore = 245.00 Crores
Plot 500 sq. yds-76, market price amounting to Rs. 50,000/-
per sq. yds = (500 sq. yds. X Rs. 50,000/- =Rs. 2.50 Crore i.e.
76X2.50 Crores =Rs. 375.00 Crores.
Total loss to the Govt.: Rs. 375.00+ 245.00 = 620.00 Crores
approx.
24
24 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
As per information gathered from the market, 50%
partnership holding by Sh. SP Singh’s son in this project. All the
rules and regulation/guidelines were side lines and huge loss
amounting to Rs. 620.00 Crores+ loss of the stamp duty as the
purchaser of the plot holders only paying 10,000/- per sq. yds. as
collector rate of Mohali which is a huge loss caused to the
Government exchequer.
PSIEC is a Nodal Agency to create land bank on behalf of
the State Government so that prominent investors may invest in the
State of Punjab. The financial position of PSIEC is healthy and
can independently purchase this plot. This act of officers of PSIEC
can give employment atleast 50,000 unemployed persons and also
complete the Manifesto of the Congress Govt. to give Ghar- Ghar
Rojgar Yojna but in the instant case Sh. SP Singh has created self
land bank for his personal gains.
Being a congressmen I would request you to kindly look into
this scam and do the needful at the earliest as the election is going to
be held shortly and I don’t want that this scam would be shameful for
Captain sir.
Yours sincerely,
Sd/- Navjot Singh
Congressmen”
8.3 It transpires that above complaint was received in the office of
Punjab State Chief Vigilance Commissioner, SAS Nagar (Mohali) vide Diary
No.65 dated 21.06.2021 and the same was forwarded to DSP (Vigilance), Mohali
for passing appropriate orders.
8.4 A bare perusal of the abovesaid complaint reveals that it is a pseudo
communication made to the Chief Vigilance Commissioner and till date, the
identity/credentials of complainant “Navjot Singh-congressman” are not known.
Neither aforesaid “Navjot Singh-congressman” joined preliminary inquiry; nor he
was associated during investigation by the Vigilance Bureau for the reasons best
25
25 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
known to them. In such a scenario, it is not conceivable as to how the State Chief
Vigilance Commissioner has set the Bureau into motion, without ascertaining the
sanctity of complaint as well as credentials of the complainant.
As a result of the above, there is no hesitation to observe that non-
association of complainant “Navjot Singh-congressman” by the Vigilance Bureau
casts serious doubts on the functioning of the quarter concerned, especially in
view of the fact that in penultimate paragraph of the complaint, it is claimed that
“Being a congressmen, I would request you to kindly look into this scam and
do the needful at the earliest as the election is going to be held shortly and I
don’t want that this scam would be shameful for Captain sir”. Hence, there
remains no doubt that alleged complaint is actuated with ulterior motive and
petitioners have been made scapegoat by some disgruntled element(s) while
misusing the office of Punjab State Chief Vigilance Commissioner.
8.5 It is quite evident that initially, plot No.1 (measuring 25 acres) was
allotted in favour of PALI Ltd. more than 40 years back i.e. 30.07.1984 by the
PSIDC on “freehold basis” and thereafter, a sale deed dated 22.05.1987 was
executed by the PSIDC in respect of the plot in question in favour of PALI Ltd.
8.6 The assets of PALI Ltd., including the aforementioned plot, got
amalgamated in Phillips India Ltd. under a ‘Scheme of Amalgamation’ which
was duly accepted by the PSIDC and thereafter, upon recovering all the dues
from the original allottee i.e. PALI Ltd., the requisite ‘No-Dues Certificate’ was
issued in their favour.
8.7 On 27.01.2016, under the orders of Hon’ble Calcutta High Court, in
a ‘Scheme of Demerger’, the plot was transferred from Phillips India Ltd. to
26
26 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
another company Phillips Lighting India Ltd., whose name was subsequently
changed to Signify Innovations Ltd.
8.8 Till date, there is no allegation by the PSIDC; or PSIEC; and/or by
the Industries Department, Punjab that PALI Ltd.; or Signify Innovations Ltd.; or
the Gulmohar Township has violated any terms & conditions regarding the
sale/transfer/bifurcation of the plot in question. On the other hand, there is
sufficient materials on record which clearly indicates that it is a simple case
where an industrial plot stood transferred/sold initially from the PSIDC to PALI
Ltd.; thereafter to Signify Innovations Ltd.; and finally to the Gulmohar
Township. The records also indicate that Gulmohar Township has duly obtained
necessary permission from the competent authority before
bifurcation/fragmentation of the plot in question into smaller plots and none of
the purchasers has raised any grievance in this regard till date.
8.9 It is also duly established on record that similar permissions for
bifurcation/fragmentation of various industrial plots have already been granted by
the PSIDC/PSIEC in District Mohali before registration of the present FIR as well
as subsequent thereto and for reference, the details of which as contained in list
(Mark ‘Y’), are reproduced here as under:-
Sr. Focal Plot No. Date of Date of Last Original Date of No. of
No. Point/Phase Original Transfer Area of Bifurcation Bifurcated/
Allotment Industrial Fragmente
Plot d Plots
including
original
retained
plot
1. PHASE VII D-162-163- 23-06-1989 20-01-2006 7500 21-06-2006 3
MOHALI 164 (Plot
allotted after
Clubbing 3
Plots)
2. PHASE VII B-64 22-07-1981 07-03-2008 9838 06-12-2010 4
MOHALI27
27 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
3. PHASE VIII C-183 14-07-2000 13-04-2010 4000 05-03-2012 4
B MOHALI
4. PHASE VII C-98 13-12-1977 26-09-2011 3167 11-10-2012 6
MOHALI
5. PHASE VII D-133 15-07-1982 10-07-2014 2500 12-11-2013 5
MOHALI
6. PHASE VIII C-168 31-03-2000 15-10-2008 4600 19-08-2014 2
B MOHALI
7. PHASE VIII D-250 18-02-2016 — 2507 07-04-2016 3
A MOHALI
8. PHASE IX 433 10-02-1992 04-04-2012 1330 18-03-2016 2
MOHALI
9. PHASE VIII C-201 & C- 18-02-2016 11-06-2018 7048.89 12-01-2017 5
B MOHALI 202 (P)
10. PHASE VIII C-177 31-03-2000 10-08-2016 5217 08-02-2017 4
B MOHALI
11. PHASE VII D-162-163- 23-06-1989 20-01-2006 7500 09-03-2017 2
MOHALI 164
(Fragmented
Plots were
clubbed and
fragmented
again)
12. PHASE VIII D-180 05-05-2000 23-12-2011 2504 05-05-2017 4
B MOHALI
13. PHASE VIII D-233 01-03-2013 — 2340 26-05-2017 2
B MOHALI
14. PHASE IX 337 08-01-1987 — 4277 13-06-2017 5
MOHALI
15. PHASE VIII C-196 29-11-2011 08-08-2017 3524.44 29-11-2017 3
B MOHALI
16. PHASE VIII D-235 15-04-2008 08-09-2017 2269 11-12-2017 4
B MOHALI
17. PHASE VIII C-210 15-02-2017 — 3450 12-02-2018 4
B MOHALI
18. PHASE VIII D-244 15-04-2008 19-12-2017 2501 19-02-2018 3
B MOHALI
19. PHASE VII B-74 22-04-1983 13-08-2002 9411 07-08-2018 5
MOHALI
20. PHASE VIII D-266 18-02-2016 — 2500 10-06-2019 5
B MOHALI
21. PHASE VII B-73 02-05-1977 27-12-2002 9411 14-08-2019 5
MOHALI28
28 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
22. PHASE VIII D-234 07-05-2010 — 2400 14-08-2019 4
B MOHALI
23. PHASE VIII D-224-227 10-10-2000 29-09-2006 9864 13-11-2019 4
B MOHALI
24. PHASE VII D-161 19-03-1987 — 2500 27-11-2019 4
MOHALI
25. PHASE VIII D-249 22-11-2011 16-07-2017 2561.31 18-05-2020 3
A MOHALI
26. PHASE VIII D-235 15-04-2008 08-09-2017 1000 08-02-2021 2
B MOHALI
27. PHASE VII A-28 01-10-1976 29-05-2019 26056 02-01-2021 8
MOHALI
28. PHASE VII B-70 20-03-1980 04-08-2000 9411 02-02-2021 4
MOHALI
29. PHASE VIII C-210 (C) 29-11-2011 21-03-2018 1277.77 12-02-2021 2
B MOHALI
30. Phase IX, Plot No.1 30.07.1984 15.03.2021 1,21,000 24-03-2021 125
Industrial (Present Case)
Estate
Mohali
31. PHASE VII D-103 A 04-04-1985 — 2500 22-04-2021 5
MOHALI
32. PHASE VIII C-211 18-02-2016 — 3450 30-04-2021 4
B MOHALI
33. PHASE VII D-156-A (P) 08-08-1986 23-06-2021 2700 02-07-2021 6
MOHALI
34. PHASE VII A-28 P 01-10-1976 29-05-2019 2673.61 23-08-2021 6
MOHALI
35. PHASE VIII C-209 (P) 29-11-2011 07-02-2017 3524.24 01-10-2021 4
B MOHALI
36. PHASE VII D-94 23-12-1975 01-09-2020 2500 03-12-2021 2
MOHALI
37. PHASE VIII D-220 14-07-2004 02-08-2018 2680 10-12-2021 4
B MOHALI
38. PHASE VIII D-244 P, D- 15-04-2008 19-12-2017 2501 17-12-2021 5
B MOHALI 244 A & D-
244 B
(CLUBBED
PLOT)
39. PHASE VIII D-200 13-07-2004 18-11-2005 2584 18-02-2022 3
B MOHALI
40. PHASE VIII F-510-514 14-05-2019 — 2500 30-05-2022 5
B MOHALI
41. PHASE VIII F-516-520 15-11-2021 27-11-2015 2500 15-06-2022 5
29
29 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
B MOHALI
8.10 Apart from the aforesaid details, there are numerous instances in the
State of Punjab, where bigger plots were bifurcated/fragmented into smaller plots
and no criminal proceedings were initiated by the Vigilance Bureau in any other
case. Thus, the petitioner(s) have been selectively targeted and victimized while
misusing the powers by the Vigilance Bureau for the reasons best known to them.
8.11 As far as the allegation with regard to shortfall of bifurcation/
fragmentation fees is concerned, the same shall not attract any criminal liability;
rather at best, if there is any demand of revenue by the PSIDC or PSIEC, the
same can be raised in accordance with law against the person(s) concerned. For
the sake of repetition, it is specifically observed here that till date, no demand of
any fees etc. has been raised by the PSIDC; or PSIEC; and/or even by the State of
Punjab on account of sale/purchase/transfer/bifurcation of the plot in question
from the Gulmohar Township. Even for the sake of arguments, if at all, there had
been any shortfall in deposit and/or calculation of fees by Gulmohar Township,
there was no occasion for the Vigilance Bureau to register an FIR; rather the dues
can be recovered in accordance with law by the competent authority.
8.12 It is noteworthy that on 16.03.2021, Gulmohar Township applied to
PSIEC for bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question into 125 plots. In the
meanwhile, vide order dated 17.03.2021 (P-3 in CRM-M-20858-2023),
petitioner-Sunder Sham Arora, being Cabinet Minister of Industries &
Commerce, Government of Punjab from 2017 to 2022, made a routine
communication to Managing Director, PSIEC asking certain information
30
30 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
regarding pendency of files for bifurcation/fragmentation and for reference, the
relevant extract of the same reads as under:-
“Office of Industries Minister, Punjab;
Report with regard to pending files of bifurcation and change of name
are pending with the PSIEC upto 16.03.2021, be sent to the
undersigned till 18.03.2021.
Sd/-
17.03.2021
MD/PSIEC”
8.13 On 18.03.2021, a 10-member Departmental Committee consisting of
the following members was constituted by Mrs. Neelima, IAS, Managing
Director, PSIEC:-
(i) Surinderpal Singh, Executive Director;
(petitioner in CRWP-4289-2023);
(ii) Bhai Sukhdeep Singh Sidhu, Chief General Manager (Estate);
(petitioner in CWP-7424-2023);
(iii) Joginder Singh Bhatia, Chief General Manager (Planning);
(petitioner in CRM-M-22225-2023);
(iv) Davinderpal Singh, General Manager (Personnel);
(petitioner in CRM-M-22207-2023);
(v) Parminder Singh, Executive Engineer;
(petitioner in CRWP-3499-2023);
(vi) Ankur Choudhary, Estate Officer;
(petitioner in CRM-M-22206-2023);
(vii) Tejveer Singh, District Town Planner;
(viii) Ashima Aggarwal, Assistant Town Planner (Planning);
(ix) Sandeep Singh, Sub Division Engineer;
(petitioner in CRM-M-22178-2023);
(x) Rajat Thamman, Dealing Assistant;
(petitioner in CRM-M-22172-2023);
31
31 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
8.14 On 24.03.2021, petitioner-Gulmohar Township was granted
permission by PSIEC to bifurcate/fragment plot in question into 125 plots.
8.15 Even in response to the letter dated 07.09.2021 of Vigilance Bureau,
Secretary, Industries & Commerce Department, Government of Punjab vide letter
dated 05.10.2021 (P-11 in CRWP-3499-2023) replied that the Departmental
Committee had thoroughly scanned and probed each and every accusation and the
same were found to be baseless.
8.16 Thus, the allegations contained in the FIR are based on mere
conjectures. The bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question into 125 plots was
allowed by the PSIEC as per Policy dated 08.02.2005 (P-39 in CRWP-3499-
2023); which is continuously being followed in the entire State of Punjab and
more than 100 plots have been bifurcated/fragmented in the State under this
policy and for reference, clause No.10(g) of the same, being relevant, is extracted
here as under:-
“10(g) Resolved to allow bifurcation/fragmentation of all
industrial plots (excepting semi-developed pocket) in different Focal
Points including Mohali in the sizes 1000 Sq. Yds and above by
charging the fees as proposed in the agenda with the condition that
no fragmented/bifurcated portion(s) should be below 400 Sq. Yds.
However, the internal development shall be the sole responsibility of
the plot holders at their risk and cost. In these cases where original
allotments were made by clubbing the plots, de-clubbing shall be
permissible irrespective of the sizes. Transfer/bifurcation fees shall
be chargeable on fragmented portion only payable at the time of
seeking bifurcation/fragmentation. Moreover, no separate transfer
fees will be charged for the first transfer of ownership of the
fragmented/bifurcated portion of the plot.”
32
32 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
In view of above, the decision in present case for allowing
bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question by the PSIEC has rightly been
accepted by the Government of Punjab, Department of Industries vide letters
dated 05.10.2021, 15.12.2022 and 11.01.2023 (P-11, P-12 and P-26, respectively
in CRWP-3499-2023).
8.17 Once it is established that the decision to fragment the plot in
question was validly taken by the PSIEC while following due procedure, then it is
absolutely wrong to allege that any special favour was extended to the petitioner-
Gulmohar Township and/or any loss was caused to the State Exchequer and as
such, there was no occasion to register an FIR by the Vigilance Bureau.
8.18 Although, learned State counsel tried to raise a plea that
permission(s)/sanction(s) have been granted to the petitioner-Gulmohar Township
in undue haste within a period of 07 days, but mere promptness shown by the
competent authority while discharging their official duties does not attract any
culpability; rather it deserves appreciation for better governance.
8.19 Apart that, there is no quarrel that an additional revenue was earned
by the State Government and PSIEC while allowing bifurcation/fragmentation in
the year 2021; therefore it would be absolutely wrong on the part of Vigilance
Bureau to allege that transfer/fragmentation was unlawful and/or caused loss to
the State Exchequer.
8.20 Still further, it is a matter of records that upon registration of sale
deed dated 25.02.2021 (P-49 in CRWP-3499-2023) between Signify Innovations
Ltd. and the Gulmohar Township, the State Government and PSIEC earned
revenue to the tune of Rs.8.5 Crore and Rs. 4.82 Crore, respectively.
33
33 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
8.21 Also discernible that petitioner-Gulmohar Township has complied
with all the conditions of allotment letter dated 30.07.1984 (P-37 in CRWP-3499-
2023) regarding construction of building and plans were approved by the
competent authority. Moreover, neither there is any violation; nor any illegality
shown by learned State counsel while granting permission for sale of plot in
question in favour of the petitioner-Gulmohar Township.
8.22 Needless to say that subsequent vendees/purchasers of
bifurcated/fragmented plots would be governed by the terms & conditions
stipulated in the transfer letter(s).
8.23 As already discussed, till today, there is no demand raised on
account of bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question; nor any dues are pending
towards the Gulmohar Township; therefore, ‘No-Objection Certificate’ for sale of
plot in question was validly issued by the PSIEC and permission for
bifurcation/fragmentation was granted in a lawful manner by the competent
authority; thus the allegations of loss of Rs.500/700 Crore levelled by the
Vigilance Bureau are completely imaginary having no legs to stand.
8.24 As already noticed, petitioner-Sunder Sham Arora had merely
solicited a report from the M.D, PSIEC with respect to pending cases of
bifurcation/fragmentation and there is not even a whisper that communication
dated 17.03.2021 was issued solely for the plot in question. Hence, petitioner
Sunder Sham Arora did not extend any favour to a particular person, including
Gulmohar Township; rather, he had asked the information from M.D., PSIEC in a
routine manner in his official capacity. Above all, mere calling of report from
M.D, PSIEC by the Minister concerned does not constitute a criminal offence;
nor any mens rea can be attributed to either of the petitioners, including
34
34 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
petitioner-Gulmohar Township; or to the Committee Members and/or to Sunder
Sham Arora, the then Industries & Commerce Minister.
8.25 Even the members of Departmental Committee had discharged their
duties with due diligence in accordance with law while submitting their report for
approval of bifurcation/fragmentation.
A fortiorari, it is quite elementary that every official act is presumed
to be correct unless proved otherwise and in the present case, there is no such
material available on record to rebut that presumption. Even till date, neither any
subsequent purchaser(s)/transferee(s); nor PSIDC; or PSIEC or State Government
has raised any finger regarding the bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question.
Hence, there is no justification to connect the members of the Committee with
any act of forgery, cheating or giving undue benefit to petitioner-Gulmohar
Township.
8.26 From the material available on record, there is no hesitation to hold
that petitioner-Gulmohar Township has complied with all the legal formalities
while obtaining approval for bifurcation/fragmentation of plot in question and
have paid the requisite fees as per rules; thus, no criminal intent can be attributed
on their part in purchasing; or bifurcating/fragmenting plot No.1, Phase IX, SAS
Nagar, Mohali.
8.27 Even the plea(s) raised by intervener-Philips Employees Sangharsh
Committee are liable to be rejected for the simple reason that they have remedy
for recovery of their pending dues, if any, as per law, from the erstwhile
management, if so advised, but have no locus standi to oppose the prayer of
petitioner(s).
35
35 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
So far as the plea regarding violation of PAPRA is concerned, the
same would also be unacceptable in view of the exemption granted by
Government of Punjab vide Gazette Notification dated 12.09.2018 (P-18 in
CRM-M-22207-2023) and relevant part of which reads as under:-
“Government of Punjab
Department of Housing and Urban Development
(Housing I Branch)
Notification
Dated: 12/09/2018
No.08/04/2018-4HG1/1316623/1In exercise of the powers vested under Section 44 (2) of the
Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (Punjab Act
No. 14 of 1995) and all other powers enabling him to act in this
behalf, the Governor of Punjab is pleased to exempt the bifurcation
of Industrial Plots not measuring less than 1000 Sq. meters
allotted by the Government Agency/Corporation of the State of
Punjab constituted for the development of land for promotion of
Industry, from all the provisions of the Punjab Apartment and
Property Regulation Act, 1995, subject to such terms and
conditions as may be determined in a policy framed by the
Concerned Government Agency/Corporation.
Vini Mahajan
Dated: 06.09.2018 Additional Chief Secretary
Chandigarh Department of Housing and Urban Development”
9. Although, in order to oppose the prayer of petitioner(s), learned State
counsel cited various judicial precedents, but the same are not helpful for the
following reasons:-
(1) In Neeharika‘s case (supra), it was held by Hon’ble the
Supreme Court that power of quashing should be exercised sparingly
with circumspection in the rarest of rare cases. Also observed that
quashing of a complaint/FIR should be exception; rather than
ordinary rule. Here, in the case in hand, even if the allegations
levelled in the FIR are taken at their face value, it does not disclose36
36 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
commission of a cognizable offence; nor is there any criminality
involved in the present case.
(2) In Kaptan Singh‘s case (supra), it was held that when there
are serious triable allegations in complaint it is improper to quash
FIR under Section 482 Cr.P.C. but in the present case, no criminality
is found against the petitioners which can be tried against them.
(3) In Priyanka Yadav‘s case (supra), while relying upon
Neeharika‘s case (ibid), Hon’ble the Supreme Court held that High
Court(s) cannot pass ‘no arrest’ or ‘no coercive action’ till final
report is filed and such practice is disapproved, whereas no orders
like ‘no arrest’ or ‘no coercive action’ have been passed in the case
in hand.
(4) In Sahara Housing‘s case (supra), Hon’ble the Supreme
Court again while referring to Neeharika‘s case (supra) held that
High Court is not justified while staying investigation and in passing
consequential directions at interlocutory stage. In this case, no
direction was passed at interlocutory stage.
(5) In Aman Kumar Singh‘s case (supra), it was held by Hon’ble
the Supreme Court that FIR in disproportionate assets case
pertaining to corruption cases, cannot be quashed, specifically at the
stage of investigation. Also held that plea of mala fide may not per
se form the basis for quashing the FIR. However, in the present case,
this Court has found that no criminal offence is made out against
either of the petitioners; hence the judgement is distinguishable on
facts.
8.29 In view of the facts & circumstances discussed here-in-above, the
irresistible conclusion would be that:-
i. The criminal proceedings have been initiated by the Vigilance
Bureau on the basis of pseudo complaint made by one “Navjot
Singh-congressman”, whose identity/credentials are not
known till date. Thus, it can be safely observed that aforesaid
37
37 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
pseudo complaint was made just to victimise the petitioner(s)
for ulterior motive and extraneous reasons, which are
unknown to law;
ii. The then State Chief Vigilance Commissioner also failed to
exercise due diligence while not getting verified the
identity/credentials of the complainant and straightway,
forwarding the pseudo complaint to Deputy Superintendent of
Police, (Vigilance), SAS Nagar Mohali;
iii. The Vigilance Bureau, while misusing their powers, registered
the impugned FIR, without there being any basis, just to
harass and humiliate the petitioner(s);
iv. On the basis of Policy dated 08.02.2005, total 40 other
industrial plots in District SAS Nagar Mohali and more than
100 plots in the entire State of Punjab have been permitted to
be bifurcated/fragmented by the PSIDC/PSIEC; hence, the
plot in question is not the solitary instance of bifurcation/
fragmentation;
v. The continuation of proceedings by the Vigilance Bureau is a
complete misuse of process of law and as such, the same
deserves to be quashed and set-aside;
vi. Resultantly, in the opinion of this Court, it is a fit case to
exercise the inherent powers under Section 482 Cr.P.C to
prevent the abuse of process of law.
10. Consequently, there is no option, except to allow all the ten petitions.
11. Ordered accordingly.
38
38 of 39
::: Downloaded on – 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:172225
CRWP-3500-2023 and connected cases
12. As a result, FIR No.01 dated 05.01.2023, registered under Sections
409, 420, 465, 467, 468, 471 and 120-B of the IPC and Section 13(1) (a) read
with Section 13 (2) of PC Act, at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Flying Squad-
1, District SAS Nagar (Mohali), Punjab and all consequential proceedings arising
therefrom, are quashed and set aside qua the petitioner(s).
13. Needless to say that quashing of impugned FIR shall not debar the
PSIEC/PSIDC; or State of Punjab from raising any demand, if found due, in
accordance with law against the person(s) concerned, including subsequent
purchasers, if so advised.
Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed off.
Photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected matters.
20th DECEMBER, 2024 (MAHABIR SINGH SINDHU)
SN JUDGE
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable: Yes/No
39
39 of 39
::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2025 22:28:45 :::
[ad_1]
Source link