High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Harjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-10061-2003  RD-P&H 5807 (22 August 2006)
* * * * *
C.W.P NO. 10061 OF 2003
Date of decision : July 11, 2006
* * * * *
Harjeet Singh ..............Petitioner
State of Haryana and others ...........Respondents * * * * *
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA
Present: Mr. Ashish Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
* * * * *
Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel for the petitioner at the outset states that although in the construction which is in question a depot is being run now but prior thereto in the construction portion an industry was running. Shri Ashish Aggarwal has maintained that the aforesaid construction in which the said industry was being run had been raised prior to the issuance of the notification under Section 4 (1) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). Sh. Aggarwal has made a grievance that after order dated June 2, 2003 had been passed by the learned Tribunal under the Act, a review application was filed by the petitioner before the Tribunal taking up all the aforesaid pleas. However, the learned Tribunal vide an order dated June 19, 2003 had refused to interfere and the aforesaid review application had been dismissed.
A copy of the order dated June 19, 2003 along with the review application has been appended as Annexure P-19 with the writ petition.
After hearing the learned counsel for the parties but without going into the merits of the controversy, we deem it appropriate that the factual position is re-examined by the Tribunal.
Consequently, the order dated June 19, 2003 (Annexure P-19) passed by the learned Tribunal is set aside the the review application filed by the petitioner is restored back to its original number. The Tribunal is now requested to look into the factual position depicted in the review application. The petitioner would be at liberty to place such documents on record before the Tribunal as may be deemed appropriate and relevant.
Parties shall appear before the Tribunal on August 28, 2006. Till the matter is finally decided by the learned Tribunal, the interim protection granted to the petitioner by this Court, shall continue to operate.
Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.
( VINEY MITTAL )
July 11, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.