Disposed

Amandeep Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2012CWP/4965/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners challenged excavation for a gas pipeline alleging violation of statutory notice requirements. The High Court dismissed the merits but granted liberty to seek representation from concerned authorities.

What did the court decide?

Liberty granted to petitioners to approach concerned authorities regarding their grievance; instructions given for time-bound decision with hearing.

Amandeep Singh and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors. — Property and Title | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.4965 of 2012 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.4965 of 2012 (O & M) Date of Decision: April 03, 2012

¶5

Amandeep Singh and another

¶6

....Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. Baldev Kapoor, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶12

¶13

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶14

The petitioners in the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India are seeking quashing of action of respondents No.1 to 4 whereby they have initiated the process of excavation for laying gas pipeline on Bhawna-Dadri-Nangal, on the land of the petitioners. According to the learned counsel, the same is being done without issuing any notice under Section 3(1) of the Petroleum and Minerals Pipelines (Acquisition of Right of User in Land), Act, 1962. A further writ of mandamus has been sought for directions to respondents No.1 to 4 to re-route the gas pipeline from Bhawna-Dadri-Nangal so as to exclude the land of the petitioners and a further prayer has also been made to lay the gas pipeline straight through the land of respondent No.5.

¶15

On a query being put to learned counsel for the

¶16

::2::

¶17

CWP No.4965 of 2012 (O & M)

¶18

petitioners as to whether the petitioners have approached the concerned authorities at the first instance with regard to their grievances raised in this petition.

¶19

Learned counsel admitted that no such representation has been filed by the petitioners. He, however, states that the present petition be disposed of and a liberty may be granted to the petitioners to file such a representation with the concerned authorities, who may be directed to decide the same in some timebound frame.

¶20

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, perusing the petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of by granting liberty to the petitioners to approach the concerned authority with regard to their grievance as raised in this petition. It is, however, made clear that in case any such representation is filed by the petitioners, the concerned authority shall look into the same and pass a speaking order thereon in accordance with law expeditiously after affording an opportunity of hearing to the affected parties.

¶21

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶22

April 03, 2012 sukhpreet

Amandeep Singh and Anr. v. Union of India and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amandeep Singh and Anr. v. Union of India 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

Samparak Social Awareness Community etc. Vs Union of India and Others

Reliance General Insurance Company Ltd. Vs Subhash Gupta and Anr.

Naresh Kuamr Soni Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gill Cooperative L&C Society (Diploma Holder) Ltd. and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Jasbir Singh & Co. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

National Senior Secondary School, Panipat and Anr. Vs Union of India and Ors.