The petitioner challenged licences granted to others under the Haryana DRUA Act, claiming the real grievance was the cancellation of his flat booking. The Court held the petition lacked bonafide and dismissed it.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No. 1019 of 2012 Date of decision: 18.1.2012
Deepan Garg
…..Petitioner
vs.
State of Haryana & ors …..Respondents
CORAM: - HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL
Present: - Mr. Deepak Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner
HEMANT GUPTA, J
Petitioner has filed the present petition seeking cancellation of the licenses granted to respondents no. 7 to 10 under the Haryana Development & Regulation of Urban Area Act, 1975 and the rules framed thereunder.
Learned counsel for the petitioner points out that he is one of the Directors of M/s Ruchira Packaging Products Pvt. Ltd. The said Company has booked a flat with respondent No. 10. The said booking was cancelled vide the communication dated 22.6.2010 (Annexure P-64).
It thus transpires that the grievance of the petitioner is in respect of cancellation of booking of flat. The petitioner has sought to seek cancellation of the licenses. Under the guise to dispute the cancellation of flat, the present writ petition lacks bonafidy.
Dismissed.
(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE
(A.N.JINDAL) JUDGE
18.1.2012 preeti
1 issue framed by the court
Whether to allow a writ petition seeking cancellation of licences where the grievance relates only to cancellation of a flat booking.
Deepan Garg
State of Haryana & ors
Hemant Gupta
A.N. Jindal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
