Complaint against MCG official, two political leaders found to be fake

Gurugram deputy commissioner Nishant Yadav had directed the complainant to record his statement before the city magistrate on Monday, following which a probe would have been initiated. However, he could not be contacted and the address provided by him was found to be fake

A complaint from a Sector 7 resident who alleged that a senior official of the Municipal Corporation of Gurugram (MCG) and two local politicians “transferred the ownership rights of government shops to common citizens and regularised illegal buildings that were earlier sealed by the civic body” turned out to be “false”, according to a press release issued by the district administration on Monday.

The complainant had alleged that the ‘MCG official and politicians’ have taken bribes for changing the ownership rights of at least 36 such shops. (HT PHOTO)

After receiving the complaint, Gurugram deputy commissioner Nishant Yadav had directed the complainant, a resident of Bank Colony in Sector 7, to record his statement before the city magistrate on Monday, following which a probe could be initiated. However, he could not be contacted and the address provided by him was found to be fake.

According to the release, the Haryana government treats “complaints raised by anonymous individuals as fake”, which has no merit for a further investigation. The administration has thus closed a probe in the case on Monday, it added.

In his complaint, the resident had alleged that two local politicians and a senior MCG official along with the civic body staff were charging ₹3 lakh per shop for transferring ownership rights to common citizens who are ineligible as per the scheme and getting the same approved by the corporation. He had alleged that the politicians and MCG officials had taken bribes for changing the ownership rights of at least 36 such shops.

“It has been found in the report received from the field staff of the Gurugram district administration that the house number given by the complainant in the complaint was incorrect. When the field team visited the location and enquired about the house number mentioned in the complaint, the local residents told them that none of the houses there had that number. Even no person in that name lived in the area,” said an official spokesperson of the district administration.

It is not only that the complainant gave a wrong address, but even his cellphone number was also mentioned in the complaint.

“Despite all efforts by the district administration, the complainant could not be contacted. The complainant also did not contact the district administration regarding the investigation, due to which the complaint filed to the district administration has been considered fake,” said the spokesperson.