Disposed

Inderjit Gupta and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Jan 2009CWP/961/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissed a public interest petition seeking direction against illegal encroachment, directing the petitioners to first file a representation with the Deputy Commissioner before seeking court intervention.

What did the court decide?

Direction to petitioners to file a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, within six weeks; no immediate directions issued against encroachment.

Inderjit Gupta and Ors. Vs Sta… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 961 of 2009 Date of Decision: 21.1.2009

¶3

Inderjit Gupta and others

¶4

....Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶10

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶11

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶12

Present: Shri Naveen Batra, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶13

Shri Amol Rattan Singh, Additional AG, Punjab.

¶14

T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral).

¶15

This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, to take appropriate action against illegal encroachment in Garhi Gate area, Hoshiarpur.

¶16

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner at some length and Shri Amol Rattan Singh, learned Additional AG, Punjab, who has accepted notices on behalf of respondents No. 1, 2 and 4, we are of the view that the petitioners ought to make a proper representation to the Deputy Commissioner seeking action against the alleged encroachment. Shri Amol Rattan Singh, submitted and, in our opinion, rightly so, that since no representation appears to have been made by the petitioners so far against

¶17

(2)

¶18

CWP No. 961 of 2009

¶19

the alleged encroachment by respondent No.5, it is unnecessary to entertain this petition for issuance of any direction at this stage. He submits that if the petitioners make a representation to the Deputy Commissioner, the latter shall look into the matter and take appropriate action in accordance with law in case any encroachment is proved to have been made and remains to be removed.

¶20

We, accordingly, dispose of this petition with the direction that the petitioners shall, if so advised, file a representation, within a period of six weeks from today to the Deputy Commissioner, Hoshiarpur, who shall then look into the matter and after proper verification of the facts take appropriate action against the encroachment, if any. The needful shall be done expeditiously, but not later than six months from the date the representation is received. No costs.

¶21

(T.S. THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶22

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶23

21.1.2009 ds

Inderjit Gupta and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Inderjit Gupta and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Gurmit Kaur Vs State of Pb. etc.

Ravinder Singh and Anr. Vs UOI and Ors.

Gajraj Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Handicapped Welfare Group Hou. Society Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Another

Nevdac Prosthetic Centre Daulatsinghwala Vs Regional Provident Fund Commissioner

Kajheri Residents Welfare Society Vs Union of India & Ors.