Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

NEELAM KUMARI versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Neelam Kumari v. State of Punjab & Ors - CWP-10155-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5810 (22 August 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 10155 OF 2006

Date of decision : July 21, 2006

* * * * *

Neelam Kumari ............Petitioner

Vs.

State of Punjab & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. R.S Chauhan, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab.

Mr. S.C Pathela, Advocate for respondents no. 2 & 3.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

Written statement on behalf of the respondents has been filed in the Court today. The same is taken on record. A copy thereof has been supplied to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

The petitioner has approached this Court challenging the order dated June 20, 2006 passed by the respondent-Improvement Trust, Pathankot (hereinafter referred to as `the Trust'), whereby the temporary booth in question installed by the petitioner in the Trust land has been ordered to be removed. The petitioner has appended the notice Annexure P- 2 issued by the Trust in this regard.

Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the petitioner was granted only six hours time to vacate the site in question and therefore, the action of the Trust was wholly arbitrary and unjustified under the circumstances of the case.

The claim of the petitioner has been contested by the respondent-Trust. It has been maintained by the respondent-Trust that the petitioner was merely a licencee of the site in question and as such has absolutely no legal rights to occupy the site. The site which has been occupied by the petitioner is a portion of the footpath and the licence of the petitioner had been cancelled keeping in view the traffic hazards.

Keeping in view the stand taken by the respondents and also keeping in view the fact that the petitioner has absolutely no legal right to continue in occupation of the site in question after the termination of the licence, we are not inclined to interfere in the present case.

Dismissed.

However, the petitioner shall not be dispossessed from the site in question for a period of one month from today, subject to the petitioner filing an undertaking, with the Trust that he shall voluntarily vacate the site on or before August 31, 2006.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

July 21, 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.