Dismissed

Sumesh Singla @ Vicky Singla v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Aug 2012CWP/17735/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the construction of a Marriage Palace without necessary clearances and an electric line over it. The Court found that permissions were available and an affidavit confirmed no construction existed under the 33 KV line, dismissing the plea.

What did the court decide?

The dismissal of the Civil Writ Petition No. 17735 of 2011 is confirmed.

Sumesh Singla @ Vicky Singla Vs State of… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No. 17735 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of Decision: 1.8.2012

¶4

Sumesh Singla alias Vicky Singla

¶5

... Petitioner

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Punjab and Others

¶8

... Respondents

¶9

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

¶10

Present: Mr. A.K. Chopra, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. H.S. Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondents No. 1 to 9.

¶12

Mr. Jaswinder Randhawa, Advocate for respondent No.10 and 11.

¶13

Mr. Anand Chhibber, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vaibhav Sahni, Advocate for respondent No.12.

¶14

Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)

¶15

Civil Misc. No. 10128 of 2012

¶16

Civil Misc. Application is allowed.

¶17

Affidavit of respondent No.12 is taken on record.

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No. 17735 of 2011

¶19

This writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of directions to respondents No.1 to 11 to take action against respondent No. 12 for violating the provisions of law in constructing and opening a Marriage Palace under the name & style of S.R.F. Marriage Palace and Resorts. It is grievance of the petitioner that the said Marriage Palace/Resort has

¶20

Civil Writ Petition No. 17735 of 2011 (O&M)

¶21

¶22

been opened without getting any “No Objection Certificate” from the competent authorities like Public Works Department, Pollution Control Board, Electricity Department, Fire Department etc.

¶23

After issuance of notice of motion, reply was filed wherein it is stated that most of the “No Objection Certificates” are available with respondent No.12. On 23.7.2012, the following order was passed by this Court:-

¶24

“This petition has been filed in public interest with a prayer that marriage palace run by respondent No.12, having been constructed without getting 'No Objection Certificate' from the competent authorities like- Public Works Department, Pollution control Board, Electricity Department, Fire Department etc. and in violations of the provisions, is causing disturbance upon the road.

¶25

After hearing counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that all the primary as well as secondary permissions, needed to run a marriage palace, are available on record. However, at the time of arguments by making reference to the photographs at pages 38 to 40, it has been brought to our notice that an high tension electric wire of 33 KW is passing over the roof of the marriage palace. It is specifically stated that no construction underneath the above high tension electric wire without permission of the Electricity Authorities can be raised.

¶26

Civil Writ Petition No. 17735 of 2011 (O&M)

¶27

¶28

Sh.Anand Chhibber, Senior Advocate, seeks time to file a detailed affidavit regarding these facts.”

¶29

Since all the primary as well as secondary permissions needed to run a Marriage Palace were available with respondent No.12, the issue remained to be gone into was only with regard to passing of 33 KV electric line over the roof of the marriage palace.

¶30

In the affidavit filed today by respondent No.12, it is stated that there is no construction underneath the 33 KV electric line and the said electric line is at a distance of 30-40 feet away from the construction. After looking at the photographs, we are satisfied with the statement made in the affidavit. In addition to above, the information supplied by the Punjab State Power Corporation Limited on an application filed by the petitioner under Right to Information Act, 2005, also proves that there is no construction by respondent No.12 under 33 KV electric lines. The relevant paragraph of that reply reads as under:-:-

¶31

“9. As per the instructions of the Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd., no construction can be raised under 33 K.V. Lines. So far as this case is concerned, when this connection was given, then there was no construction under the 33 K.V. line.”

¶32

It is, thus, clear that no construction exists underneath 33 KV electric line. Otherwise also one can draw a conclusion on perusal of the photographs that the above electric line passes over the large number of buildings constructed in town.

¶33

Civil Writ Petition No. 17735 of 2011 (O&M)

¶34

¶35

Under the circumstances, no case is made out to cause

¶36

interference by this Court.

¶37

Dismissed.

¶38

(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice

¶39

(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge

¶40

August 1, 2012 “DK”

Sumesh Singla @ Vicky Singla v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sumesh Singla @ Vicky Singla 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

All India Blind Employees Association Vs UOI and Ors.

Prithvi Raj Yadav Vs Union of India and Ors.

Hardev Singh Sandhu Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Vijay Bhushan Arya Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Amarjeet Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Jia Lal and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.