Vends auction: Punjab to reply by March 26

The petitioner, wine contractor Satya Pal, had earlier alleged the "clubbing" of vends was done "only to give undue benefit to respondent number four (Maan Singh Garcha and Company) and to oust him and other bidders…. at the instance of Punjab chief minister".

"The main partner of respondent number four," the petitioner had added, "happens to be the brother of Akali Dal MLA — Jagdish Singh Garcha — who is very close to the chief minister".

Maintaining the auction to be "against the directions issued by the Court earlier in a similar writ petition, he had stated that "the action of the respondents was also against the interest of State revenue".

Claiming certain irregularities had been committed during the action of the vends, Satya Pal’s counsel had further alleged the operating of the installed cameras "in such a way that the correct position was not recorded". Seeking the appointment of an observer, he had also expressed apprehensions regarding the taking place of "certain malpractices" during the subsequent auctions. Dy Director Enforcement denies allegationsn TERMING the allegations of using "undue influence for getting the petitioner to withdraw a civil writ petition" as "false", Punjab deputy director enforcement, Kiran Rosy also denied the accusation regarding an advocate being threatened at her behest.

In her affidavit filed before Justice J.L. Gupta and Justice N.K. Agrawal of the Punjab and Haryana High Court here today, Kiran Rosy stated that advocate Kashmiri Lal Goyal had not met her or appeared before her, for over five-six months. She also denied being annoyed with the advocate.

The deputy director further expressed "surprise" at the advocate’s averment regarding his meeting higher authorities against her. "No communication in this regard has been received by the deponent from any authority," the affidavit claimed.

Also denying the allegation of her directing an Excise and Taxation officer to impound the goods of petitioner Messrs Shekhar Steel Industries for "teaching them a lesson," she claimed that the same was not possible as random checking was undertaken. "The department does not have prior knowledge of particular goods being on particular trucks," she stated.

Affidavits were also submitted for excise and taxation officer cum assistant director enforcement J.C. Vohra, Harjit Singh, Dharam Singh and Magnesh Sethi. Adjourning the hearing on the matter to April 19, the bench asked them to appear on the next date also.

The High Court had earlier issued notice to Kiran Rosy and other officers "to show cause as to why proceeding for contempt of court be not initiated against them" after Goyal had alleged that certain officers of the department had misbehaved and threatened him.

He had also stated that the application for withdrawal of the case had been filed at the instance of the respondent department.

HC issues Notice of Motion
The Punjab and Haryana High Court today issued Notice of Motion for March 24, on a petition filed by the president of Rohtak Municipal Council, seeking the quashing of a notice for convening a meeting to discuss No Confidence against her.

The notice was issued by Justice H.S. Brar and Justice V.M. Jain. In her petition, president cum Pradhan of Rohtak Nagar Parishad, Harsh Malik had earlier stated that only 10 days notice was given to her as against 15, mandatory under the provisions of law.

The counsel for the petitioner had added that the copy of the requisition was not circulated for the consideration of the petitioner or other members.