Chandigarh: Ashok Khemka, the whistleblower IAS officer, was in news for a different reason on Friday with the Punjab and Haryana High Court issuing notice of contempt against two HUDA officials over his plea alleging that he was wrongly denied plot under service quota.
The High Court sought the response of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Estate Officers (EOs) of Palwal and Bahadurgarh by November 9 after HUDA falsely claimed that Khemka had applied under general category.
Though the HUDA counsel admitted its mistake, the Bench headed by Justice Jasbir Singh was not moved and minced no words to hold that the "mistake" was intentional.
Khemka is embroiled in a raging controversy over cancellation of a land deal between DLF and Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi.
Following an advertisement issued by HUDA in 2010 for plots, Khemka had applied for plots under the serving government employee quota at three districts- Faridabad, Palwal and Bahadurgarh.
Though Khemka's application was considered in Faridabad under the said quota, the same application was considered in the general category at Palwal and Bahadurgarh by the HUDA officials.
The Administrator, in an affidavit before the High Court, had claimed that Khemka had applied under the general category and that his petition was bereft of merit.
After Khemka's counsel contested the same, the High Court summoned the original record.
On October 7, it was conceded by HUDA counsel that Khemka had applied for the government quota.
The bench on the previous date of hearing had issued notices to HUDA's administrator asking him to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for filing a false affidavit.
During the hearing, Khemka's counsel told the High Court that the HUDA authorities deliberately informed him of his application status a week after the draw in order to ensure that he was deprived of government servants quota.
The draw of lots in Palwal and Bahadurgarh were to take place from June 21 to June 25.
Khemka's counsel alleged it was on June 29 that he was informed that his application has been considered in the general category.
But, HUDA in its written reply has claimed that the letter was dispatched on June 18.
The High Court sought the response of Haryana Urban Development Authority (HUDA) Estate Officers (EOs) of Palwal and Bahadurgarh by November 9 after HUDA falsely claimed that Khemka had applied under general category.
Though the HUDA counsel admitted its mistake, the Bench headed by Justice Jasbir Singh was not moved and minced no words to hold that the "mistake" was intentional.
Khemka is embroiled in a raging controversy over cancellation of a land deal between DLF and Robert Vadra, son-in-law of Congress chief Sonia Gandhi.
Following an advertisement issued by HUDA in 2010 for plots, Khemka had applied for plots under the serving government employee quota at three districts- Faridabad, Palwal and Bahadurgarh.
Though Khemka's application was considered in Faridabad under the said quota, the same application was considered in the general category at Palwal and Bahadurgarh by the HUDA officials.
The Administrator, in an affidavit before the High Court, had claimed that Khemka had applied under the general category and that his petition was bereft of merit.
After Khemka's counsel contested the same, the High Court summoned the original record.
On October 7, it was conceded by HUDA counsel that Khemka had applied for the government quota.
The bench on the previous date of hearing had issued notices to HUDA's administrator asking him to explain why contempt proceedings be not initiated against him for filing a false affidavit.
During the hearing, Khemka's counsel told the High Court that the HUDA authorities deliberately informed him of his application status a week after the draw in order to ensure that he was deprived of government servants quota.
The draw of lots in Palwal and Bahadurgarh were to take place from June 21 to June 25.
Khemka's counsel alleged it was on June 29 that he was informed that his application has been considered in the general category.
But, HUDA in its written reply has claimed that the letter was dispatched on June 18.
