- (1.) The present is a Public Interest Litigation filed under Article 226 of the Constitution for quashing clauses (4), (7) and (9) of the office order dated 24.9.2010 (P-1) because the same prescribes for allotment of identified residential plots exclusively to the employees of Punjab Urban Development Authority-respondent Nos. 2 and 3 (for brevity, 'PUDA') at reserve price. Those employees of PUDA who have already owned residential plots/houses/flats either by purchasing in auction or from open market or by availing house loan facility from PUDA etc. are also eligible. The primary ground of challenge is that the impugned scheme is aimed at enrichment of employees of PUDA as also profiteering by the said categories of employees at the cost of taxpaying public, thus, opposed to public policy.CWP No. 12628 of 2011
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that the petitioner is a public spirited person and is the State President of RTI Activists Federation Punjab. He is also convener of 'Action Group Against Corruption'. A news report appeared in all the leading newspapers about the scheme floated by the PUDA-respondent No. 2 for allotment of residential plots to its regular employees including those who already owned residential plots/houses or flats at reserve price. This prompted the petitioner to seek information under the Right to Information Act, 2005 from the Public Information Officer of PUDA. As per the information received by the petitioner under the RTI Act it transpired that the PUDA has framed a scheme for allotment of residential plots to the officers/officials of PUDA and its Directorate, vide office order dated 24.9.2010 (P-1).
(3.) In para 6 of the petition, the petitioner has furnished glaring information about those officers/employees who already own residential houses at various places like Ludhiana, Patiala, Jalandhar, Bathinda, Amritsar, Barnala, Panchkula, Mohali etc. but yet submitted applications for allotment of one more residential plot at SAS Nagar, Mohali. The category-wise figure is as under:- JUDGEMENT_213_LAWS(P&H)1_2012_1.html;