Appointment of RERA chief and 2 members: Plan to relocate RERA office delayed notification, Himachal tells HC
The Himachal government, through an affidavit, on Thursday informed the high court that delay in the notification for appointment of Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA) chairperson as well as two members was due to government's plan to relocate RERA office in Shimla to another location.
The state government filed an affidavit through under secretary (housing) by Vikram Datt Dangwal in the high court on Thursday. 'The matter is under consideration on account of state government's ongoing deliberation regarding proposed relocation of HP RERA office within Shimla city to another location. The final decision on the appointment is likely to align with outcome of the administrative consideration,' said the state government through the affidavit.
High court on May 9 had sought affidavit from state government asking 'Specific reason that the state has withheld the recommendations of the selection committee.'
Denying any kind of 'intentional or undue' delay, the government said that the final authority regarding appointment is state government. The recommendation of selection committee were forwarded to state government through housing minister on March 20.
Unconvinced by the reasons regarding delay in issue of the notification the HC had sought a fresh affidavit. The case is now listed for May 26.
The high court on Thursday was hearing the petition filed by Atul Sharma, seeking quashing of extension given to Prabodh Saxena as chief secretary of the state government on the ground that it was given in clear violation of the Central Services Rules and guidelines of Department of Personnel & Training (DoPT). The petition argued that vigilance clearance cannot be granted to an officer who is an accused in a corruption case under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indian Express
4 hours ago
- Indian Express
Kamal Nath's nephew and industrialist Ratul Puri discharged in Rs 354-crore bank fraud case
A Delhi Court discharged industrialist Ratul Puri, who is senior Congress leader Kamal Nath's nephew, on May 24 in a Rs 354-crore bank fraud case in which Puri and others had been accused by the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) of defaulting on loans and resulting in financial losses to multiple banks. 'From above discussion, there is sufficient material on the record to come to a prima facie view that the allegations levelled against the accused persons have predominant contours of a dispute of civil nature and does not have the markings of a criminal offence. The dispute predominantly of a civil nature is being given colour or shades of criminal nature,' said Special Judge Sanjeev Aggarwal of Rouse Avenue Court in his order. What tilted the case in the favour of the accused people was the fact that the banks had denied the CBI sanction to investigate and prosecute 40 of their officials. 'As the competent authorities qua bankers have even shut out initiation of investigations against all of their bankers, totalling 40 in numbers u/S. 17A of PC (Prevention of Corruption Act) Act, it shows that present case was not having any criminal complexion or no criminal ingredients of cheating, deception or inducement,' noted Judge Aggarwal. '…senior bankers/Government officials, who are experts in the field of banking and know nitties and gritties of all the loan transactions, were fully conscious of this aspect when they denied approval u/S. 17 A of PC Act and they can also be said to be aware that the matter was of civil nature for which banks may have civil remedies available to them, as per law,' he added. The CBI had accused Ratul Puri, his wife Nita Puri, and private company Moser Baer India Limited (which made CDs and DVDs) of defrauding a consortium of banks. It had alleged that the goal of the accused was to defraud the banks by siphoning off money by misusing loans granted to them. The CBI had also alleged that the siphoning of funds could not have been possible without the 'active connivance of bank officials' since it was the job of the bank officials to monitor the loans. '…there was no diversion or siphoning or misuse of the loan(s) at any point of time and the loans were utilised for the purposes for which it was disbursed as per the RBI guidelines and the banking norms and in view of the fact that the senior functionaries of the different banks/consortium of banks running into 40 in numbers were even denied approval to investigate u/S. 17A of the PC Act by the different sets of competent authorities,' said Judge Aggarwal.
Time of India
13 hours ago
- Time of India
ED raids Himachal Pradesh assistance drug controller for bribery, extortion
NEW DELHI: Enforcement Directorate on Sunday conducted searches against a Himachal Pradesh assistant drug controller, Nishant Sareen, in bribery and extortion cases linked to the charge of him misusing his official position. Tired of too many ads? go ad free now The anti-money laundering agency is also probing "political patronage" to Sareen who after being removed as Baddi assistant drug controller on allegations of bribery in 2019 was reinstated and posted by the new Himachal Pradesh govt as Dharamshala assistant drug controller in 2024. In Oct 25, 2019, he was released on bail in the Baddi corruption case in which trial is pending. The State Vigilance and Anti-Corruption Bureau and police had filed a chargesheet under the Prevention of Corruption Act in this case and arrested him in Sept 2019. Sareen was accused of receiving bribes from pharmaceutical companies based in Baddi, a pharma hub in the state. Komal Khanna, an associate of Sareen, was also accused of corruption and was made an accused in the chargesheet. Five residential and commercial premises linked to Sareen, his father-in-law Ramesh Kumar Gupta and Khanna in Himachal Pradesh, Haryana and Punjab were searched on Sunday. ED is probing allegations of political patronage and complaints of extortion and bribery against Sareen in his present role as Dharamshala assistant drug controller too, sources said.
Indian Express
a day ago
- Indian Express
Punjab & Haryana HC terms shifting of RERA HQ to Dharamshala ‘mala fide', slaps Rs 5L fine on govt
Reacting sharply to the state government for shifting the Real Estate Regulatory Authority (RERA)'s headquarters from Shimla to Dharamshala, a division bench of Himachal Pradesh High Court Chief Justice GS Sandhawalia and Justice Ranjan Sharma on Friday termed the move 'mala fide' and slapped a penalty of Rs 5 lakh for failing to appoint the authority's chairman and members despite the necessary process being completed two months ago. The bench also directed, the detailed order released on Saturday, that Chief Secretary Prabodh Saxena should 'come present on June 25 if the necessary notifications about the appointments of RERA chairman and members were not issued'. The court directions came during the resumed hearing on a Public Interest Litigation (PIL) filed by one Atul Sharma, challenging the extension of Saxena's tenure 'on multiple grounds and the delay in appointing the RERA chairman as well as members'. The order reads, 'It is also to be noticed that in the interim period, after the recommendation sent, the office of RERA has been relocated to Dharamshala on June 13 without even identifying the alternative office place. We are also of the prima facie opinion that the whole purpose of dragging the appointments and shifting the HQ of RERA is with a mala fide purpose, and at this stage, we do not wish to say anything more.' The order further states, 'Necessary notifications shall also be issued regarding the appointments by the said date (June 25), failing which the Chief Secretary shall come present on the said date.' The division bench also reprimanded the state government for dragging its feet in notifying the appointments of the chairperson and members of the HP RERA. The court, while hearing the matter on Friday, observed that the authorities failed to act despite prior directions and imposed a cost of Rs 5,00,000 on the state government for its inaction. The order states, 'The matter was first listed on May 9 when it was brought to the court's attention that respondent No. 3 (Chief Secretary) had applied for the post of Chairperson of HP RERA. During the same hearing, the bench noted that the Registrar General of the High Court had forwarded the recommendations for appointments to the state government on March 13. Despite this, no official notification regarding the appointments had been issued. The court had also taken judicial notice of the numerous representations it received, expressing concern over the prolonged delay in filling these key regulatory positions.' Among the representations placed on record was a letter dated April 16, 2025, from one Sunil Kumar, highlighting the state's inaction. The matter was then adjourned to May 15, with the court directing the Secretary to file an affidavit in light of Rule 18(5) of the Himachal Pradesh Real Estate (Regulation and Development) Rules, 2017, which mandates the selection process be completed in a time-bound manner. On May 26, the court recorded that the affidavit dated May 15, 2025, filed by the Secretary, admitted the state government's obligation to appoint the chairperson and members. However, it was stated that the RERA office had been relocated to Dharamshala, District Kangra, in accordance with a broader policy decision. During the last hearing on June 20, the state government informed the court through a status report that only one member— Vidur Mehta — had been appointed via notification dated June 19, 2025. An affidavit filed on the same date stated that the appointment process for the remaining members and the chairperson was still under consideration. Taking a dim view of the situation, the court observed, 'The above sequence of events shows that the State Government is deliberately delaying the notification of appointments, despite recommendations being made over three months ago.' Consequently, the court imposed a penalty of Rs 5 lakh on the state government, directing that it be deposited in the Registry by June 25, 2025. The bench also ordered that the necessary appointment notifications be issued by the same date. In the event of non-compliance, the Chief Secretary has been directed to appear in person before the court. Senior advocate Peeyush Sharma, representing the petitioner, had told The Indian Express, 'The division bench has firmly instructed the state government to file its replies by June 25. Although the government informed the bench that a HPRERA member was appointed yesterday (Thursday), the bench questioned why the statutory body's chairperson had not been appointed yet, despite the selection committee, headed by the Chief Justice, High Court, already clearing the name.'
