PSIEC plot: Industries dept mum on Punjab VB’s recommendation
The vigilance bureau made the recommendation in a demi-official letter to chief secretary VK Janjua on March 2, stating that the state government should revoke the allotment to Signify Innovations under Section (4) (20) and Section 3 (1) of the conveyance deed
The industries department is tight-lipped on the recommendation of the vigilance bureau (VB) to the state government to revoke the allotment of 25 acres of industrial land in Mohali to Signify Innovations Pvt Ltd, earlier known as Philips Lighting India Limited, and cancel the sale deed executed by the company with a real estate firm two years ago.

The vigilance bureau made the recommendation in a demi-official letter to chief secretary VK Janjua on March 2, stating that the state government should revoke the allotment to Signify Innovations under Section (4) (20) and Section 3 (1) of the conveyance deed. After the cancellation of the allotment, a legal course of action should be adopted to cancel the sale deed executed between Signify Innovations and realty firm Gulmohar Township Private Limited on February 25, 2021, Varinder Kumar, special DGP-cum-chief director, vigilance bureau, wrote, detailing alleged violations in the land deal and bifurcation of the plot.
The letter was sent by the vigilance bureau to the government two months after it registered a case (FIR No 1) on January 5 this year against former industries minister Sunder Sham Arora, one IAS officer and 10 other officials in connection with “wrong bifurcation” of the 25-acre plot in Industrial Focal Point Mohali to allegedly benefit realtor firm Gulmohar Township Private Limited and causing a loss to the state exchequer. The letter was forwarded by the chief secretary to the industries department and Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation (PSIEC) for their views, but the VB is still to get any response from them, said an official privy to the matter. When contacted, Janjua and the principal secretary, industries and commerce, Dilip Kumar, refused to comment. PSIEC officials also did not say anything.
The Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation (PSIDC) had sold the Mohali plot in 1984 and the sale deed was executed between PSIDC and Punjab Anand Labs Industries Limited was executed in 1987. The unit later merged with Signify Innovations, which applied in November 2020 for obtaining the No Objection Certificate (NOC) to sell the property to Gulmohar Township. After the NOC was issued, the sale deed of the plot was registered between Signify Innovations and Gulmohar Township in February 2021. In the meantime, the work of estate management of PSIDC plots was transferred to PSIEC. Gulmohar first applied to PSIEC for placing on record the change of ownership and then for the bifurcation of the plot into 125 plots, which was allowed.
The vigilance bureau (VB), in its letter to the chief secretary last month, said the property was bifurcated illegally by PSIEC against settled norms after the sale deed was executed by Signify Innovations on February 25, 2021. Giving details of plots sold by Gulmohar Township without obtaining the NOC as well as on the day it got permission for fragmentation of plots, it said the bifurcation amounted to a violation of the master plan/zoning of Mohali, had not been registered under RERA and was in contravention of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation (PAPRA) Act. “Instead of issuing NOC, the department should have cancelled the allotment and resumed the plot,” the bureau wrote.
The industries department has repeatedly denied any irregularity, stating that the 25-acre plot was a freehold property and no undue favour was shown to Gulmohar Township or any other entity in this matter. An industries department official, who did not want to be named, said the change of ownership to Gulmohar Township was approved as per the official procedure and the fragmentation of the plot was allowed in accordance with the laid down policy after a committee examined the proposal in terms of the government decision and the 2005 resolution of the board of directors. He also questioned the VB’s action of conducting the enquiry and registering the FIR without taking “prior approval” from the government under Section 17A of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Supreme Court (SC) on April 5 stayed for four weeks further proceedings in the January 5 FIR in the case. The apex court acted on the plea from one Parminder Singh, who demanded that the probe be handed over to the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI).
