Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH versus UNION TERRITORY, CHANDIGARH

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subhash v. Union Territory, Chandigarh - CWP-10912-2001 [2006] RD-P&H 3301 (19 May 2006)

Civil Writ Petition No.10912 of 2005 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYAN AT CHANDIGRH

C.W.P.No. 10912 of 2005

Date of decision: May 23,2006

Subhash V. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Present: Mr. Sunil K.Chaudhary, Advocate,for the petitioner.

Shri Shekhar Verma, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

Shri A.K.Kanwar,Advocate, for respondent No.3 Viney Mittal,J.(Oral)

Written statement on behalf of respondent No.3 filed in court today is taken on record. A copy thereof has been furnished to the leaned counsel for the petitioner.

The transit site allotted to the petitioner in the Rehabilitation Colony,Mauli Jagaran,Chandigarh has been cancelled vide order dated August 21,2001. The appeal filed by the petitioner has been dismissed by the authority vide order dated May 4,2005, The grounds of cancellation are that the petitioner had failed to raise any construction/super structure on the site in dispute. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner at the out set informs the court that the construction in accordance with law has since been completed by the petitioner at the site.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to respondent No.3, Municipal Corporation,Chandigarh to examine the aforesaid factual position. For this purpose, the petitioner shall be required to file a detailed representation before the competent authority of the Municipal Corporation within a period of four weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Along with the aforesaid representation, the petitioner would also be required to annex the copies of all the relevant documents. If any such representation is filed by the petitioner as aforesaid, then the competent authority shall hold such inquiry as may be deemed appropriate to find out as to whether the Civil Writ Petition No.10912 of 2005 2

petitioner has raised the aforesaid construction or not. If it is found that the construction at the site has also been completed then cancellation order with regard to the site in question shall be treated as non-est. If, however it is found that the construction has not been raised by the petitioner so far, then the cancellation order passed against the petitioner shall stand revived and in that situation the present petitioner shall be deemed to he been dismissed.

The amount of Rs.10,000/- deposited by the petitioner before this court in terms of the order dated July 21,2005 shall be refunded back to him through his counsel.

A copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges.

( Viney Mittal )

Judge

May 23,2006 ( H.S. Bhalla )

sks Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.