Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAWAHAR LAL ARORA & ORS versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jawahar Lal Arora & Ors v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-11120-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4900 (27 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.11120 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:July 24, 2006

Jawahar Lal Arora and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.S.SARON

PRESENT: Shri Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Shri Vikram Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

The grievance of the petitioners is against apprehended action against them by the authorities whereby the premises owned by the petitioners are proposed to be sealed.

The primary grievance of the petitioners is that before the action is being taken against the petitioners, no show cause notice whatsoever has ever been issued to any of them.

Without commenting upon the various pleas raised by the petitioners in the present petition, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file a detailed and comprehensive individual representations before the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurgaon, respondent No.2 within a period of two weeks from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

The petitioners shall be required to give all the necessary details therein and also append all the relevant documents in support of their claim.

On receipt of the aforesaid representations, the District Town Planner (Enforcement), Gurgaon, respondent No.2 shall take a final decision thereupon within a period of four months by affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and passing a detailed and speaking order.

Till the final order is passed and communicated to the petitioners by the said respondents, no action with regard to sealing/demolition of the constructions raised by the petitioners shall be taken.

However, we make it clear that liberty granted to the petitioners or directions issued to respondents No.2 shall not be construed to mean any expression of opinion in favour of the petitioners by this Court.

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

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 24,2006 (S.S. Saron)

KD 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.