Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HARJEET SINGH versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Harjeet Singh v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-10061-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 5807 (22 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 10061 OF 2003

Date of decision : July 11, 2006

* * * * *

Harjeet Singh ..............Petitioner

Vs.

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 )

JUDGE

July 11, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu 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.