Sushil Gupta Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

The petitioner has approached this Court claiming the issuance of direction to respondent No.3, Joint Commissioner (Enforcement), Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to perform his statutory duty in terms of proviso to Section 55 of HUDA Act and to take appropriate steps for removal of alleged illegal construction raised by respondents No.4 and 5.

¶15

CWP NO.15975 of 2006 -2-

¶16

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the averments made in the present petition, we find that the petitioner has already filed a representation (Annexure P.5) dated July 29, 2006 which remains unresponded so far.

¶17

In this view of the matter, without going into the merits of the claim made by the petitioner, we dispose of the present petition with a direction to the Joint Commissioner (Enforcement), Municipal Corporation, Faridabad, respondent No.3 to take a final decision on the aforesaid representation (Annexure P.5) within a period of six months from the date a certified copy of this order is received, by affording an opportunity to the petitioner as well as respondents No.4 and 5 and by passing a detailed and speaking order.

¶18

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

¶19

charges.

¶20

October 10, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla) KD Judge

Sushil Gupta v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sushil Gupta v. State of Hry. and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Dhanwant Singh and Others Vs Pseb and Others

M/S Sarna Mal Mathura Dass and Anr. Vs State of Pb. and Ooors.

Brij Bhupinder Singh Vs State of Pb. and Ors.

Roshan Lal Vs State of Hry. and Ors.

Amandeep Kaur Vs Panjab University and Ors.

Sarup Singh Pabla Vs State of Pb. and Ors.