Disposed

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Aug 2012CWP/10559/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged illegal parking by respondents and mismanagement by railway authorities in Panipat. The Court found police action initiated and stands on private land legal. It directed police to act on future violations, railways to staff entry No.1 lot, and Municipal Corporation to wind up house parking.

What did the court decide?

Directions to SHO Panipat to act on violations; Railway authorities to manage Entry No.1 parking with fee; Municipal Corporation to wind up house parking lots if impermissible.

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and Ors. Vs… — Municipal and Town Planning | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

¶2

CWP No.10559 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.10559 of 2010 Date of decision: 14.08.2012

¶5

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and others

¶6

…..Petitioners

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Haryana and others

¶9

……Respondents

¶10

CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr.Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

¶11

Present: Mr.Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioners Mr.B.S.Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate for respondent No.7 Mr.Sandeep Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.9 and 11 Mr.Nitin Kumar, Advocate for respondent No.6

¶12

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶13

This writ petition has been filed by raising a grievance that respondent Nos.7 to 11 have opened illegal cycle, motorcycle and car parkings in houses, shops godowns situated on Malgodown road Panipat and they have also started using the public streets and open public places for the said purpose causing nuisance to residents of the area. It IS also grievance of the petitioners that the railway authorities are not managing two parking places properly which has resulted into opening of illegal parking stands.

¶14

Upon notice, reply has been filed by way of an affidavit of Mr.Pardeep Singh Sheokand, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Panipat. Paragraph Nos.4 and 5 of the said affidavit read as under:-

¶15

“4. That in regard to Malgodown Area, Panipat the SHO PS City, has been directed to ensure smooth flow of traffic and take necessary action against the violators including respondents No.7 to 11 by Superintendent of Police, Panipat.

¶16

CWP No.10559 of 2010

¶17

¶18

5. That the S.H.O. P.S. City, Panipat visited the places as mentioned in caption of present petition at Sr.No.7 to 11. The S.H.O. P.S. City, Panipat also take the report from the Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Panipat regarding using of Malgodown Area for commercial purpose. In response the Secretary, Municipal Corporation, Panipat vide his memo No.2292 dated 7.8.2012 reported that as per Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 there is no provision of establishment of cycle stand and no cycle stand is established on the land of Municipal Corporation, Panipat and no violation recognized. The S.H.O. P.S. City, Panipat reported that during his visit at the premises of respondents No.7 to 11 he has not found any parked vehicles on the public street/ road and also reported that respondent No.8 & 10 had already closed their stands. The S.H.O. P.S. City, Panipat further reported that private respondents no.7, 9 and 11 installed their stands on their land and in the street of the colony of Malgodown road, he also reported that no hindrance is found in the street. The true translated copy of letter dated 7.8.2012 issued by Municipal Corporation, Panipat is attached as Annexure R/1.”

¶19

Perusal of the above reproduced paragraphs of the affidavit makes it manifest that police authorities are initiating action against alleged violators. Inspections of the premises of respondents No.7 to 11 have also been carried out. It is also stated that respondent Nos.8 and 10 have already closed their stands and respondent Nos.7, 9, 11 are running such stands on their own land. The averments made in the affidavit clearly show that grievance raised by petitioners in this regard stands addressed.

¶20

During the course of hearing, counsel for respondent Nos.7, 9 and 11 state that they shall not use the public streets, roads or any public place for parking cycle, motorcycle etc.

¶21

CWP No.10559 of 2010

¶22

¶23

So far as management of two parking lots by railway authorities is concerned, in reply thereto, it is stated by respondent No.6 that one parking place is functional and so far as second parking place at the first entry is concerned, despite advertisement, nobody opted to manage the same.

¶24

Having regard to the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we dispose of this writ petition by issuing directions to SHO Police Station City Panipat to take immediate action in case any violation is found. The Railway authorities are also directed to make parking stand at entry No.1 functional by deputing their own personnel, may be against charging reasonable parking fee. If any street/ road etc. is found being used for private parking of the vehicles hereinafter the above SHO shall be held personally responsible for that lapse and action under law shall be taken against him. The petitioner will be at liberty to move an application before municipal authorities for removal of obstructions. So far as opening of the parking lots in houses is concerned, the Municipal authority shall take cognizance of the same and take action to wind up such parking lots, if not permissible under law.

¶25

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice 14.08.2012 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) gk Judge

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajeshwar Kumar Vashisht and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Others

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

Jai Parkash Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Liyakat and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Narinder Singh and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Gurmit Kaur Vs Kamlesh Rani

Sanstosh Kumari and Ors. Vs Punjabi Universituy, Patiala and Anr.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab