The Punjab and Haryana High Court has directed the Haryana to clarify whether the allotment of 408 flats meant for Economically Weaker Sections (EWS) and Below Poverty Line (BPL) families still subsists or has been cancelled.The direction came as the Bench observed that the latest status report placed before it was completely silent on the issue.The direction by the Division Bench of Acting Chief Justice Ashwani Kumar Mishra and Justice Rohit Kapoor followed a public interest litigation filed by Ishwar Singh and another petitioner against the State and another respondent, questioning the legality of the allotment order dated February 9, 2021.Among other things, the petitioners challenged the allotment order on the ground that a large number of flats reserved for persons and families belonging to the EWS/BPL category were allotted in a manner that violated fairness. “The petitioner alleges that fair play was not followed in the process of allotment and that the entire process was collusive and deserves, therefore, to be vitiated,” the Bench noted.Taking up the matter, the Bench on January 29, 2025, had taken on record that the State counsel’s contentions—based on instructions from an Inspector from Gurugram Anti-Corruption Bureau—that third party rights had not been fructified ever since the order was passed as certain complaints were being inquired into and were at the final stage where Haryana Chief Secretary had to take a final call. Taking note of that statement, the High Court had then directed the Chief Secretary to take a considered decision on the basis of inquiry held and report the matter to the Court.As the matter came up for resumed hearing, the Bench considered the fresh status report filed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Bureau, Gurugram Range, stating: “An FIR has been registered against the guilty officials. Out of ten, seven accused have been arrested”.The Bench, however, found a crucial omission in the State’s response. “The response filed today in Court is silent with regard to the status of allotment itself. Whether the allotment subsists or has been cancelled, is not clarified,” the Bench observed, also noting that “the affidavit filed by the respondent is also of April 23, 2025.”Finding the record incomplete on the central issue raised in the litigation, the court directed the State to place its position on record through a fresh affidavit. “In such circumstances, we call upon the respondent to file a further affidavit clarifying as to whether the allotment subsists or not. The present status of investigation shall also be placed on record,” the Bench ordered. The matter has been listed for further hearing on September 1.