Disposed

Rohit Garg v. Ravcharan Singh Brar

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Nov 2013COCP/2971/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner approached High Court via writ petition seeking FIR registration under Section 88 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 against respondent. Court disposed petition directing petitioner to approach competent authority, specifying grievances and violated provisions, with two-month compliance timeline.

What did the court decide?

Direction to approach competent authority specifying grievance and violation of particular provisions; to return if no action within two months.

Rohit Garg Vs Ravcharan Singh Brar — Punjab & Haryana HC (2013) — LawSathi Research

¶1

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.11.25 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶2

COCP-2971 of 2013 (O&M)

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

COCP-2971 of 2013 (O&M). Date of decision: November 25, 2013.

Rohit Garg

..... Petitioner

Versus

Ravcharan Singh Brar

¶9

..... Respondent

¶10

CORAM:

¶11

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI

¶12

Present: Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner

¶13

M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL)

¶14

In a writ petition filed lby the petitioner, a writ of mandamus was sought against the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda to register FIR under Section 88 of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995. Said petition was disposed of with a direction to the Senior Superintendent of Police, Bathinda, to take action as per law.

¶15

Counsel for the petitioner, at this stage, has not been able to refer to any provision of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, which prescribes procedure for taking cognizance of an offence warranting punishment under the above said Act. Counsel for the petitioner submits that on account of violations of the provisions of above said Act, a provision is made

¶16

¶17

Raj Kumar Arora 2013.11.25 16:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶18

COCP-2971 of 2013 (O&M)

¶19

under Section 88 (4) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995 enabling a police officer to remove a person from unauthorised occupancy.

¶20

Without expression of any opinion on the locus standi of the petitioner or the nature of the claim of the petitioner, at this stage, this petition is disposed of with a direction that the petitioner will approach the competent authority under the above said law for necessary action specifying the grievance of the petitioner and violation of particular provisions of the Act. In case no action is taken within a period of two months, it will be open to the petitioner to approach this Court for compliance of the directions dated 30.5.2013.

¶21

November 25, 2013. rka

¶22

(M.M.S. BEDI) JUDGE

¶23

Rohit Garg v. Ravcharan Singh Brar

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rohit Garg v. Ravcharan Singh Brar

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

Gian Chand Vs Ajay Madan and Others

Mai Chand Vs P.D. Verma

Tanvir Hussain Vs Jagpal Sandhu & Ors.

Sant Lal & Ors. Vs Arun Kumar & Ors.

Nirmal Sharma & Ors. Vs Surina Rajan and Ors.

Bagga Singh & Ors. Vs Anjali Bhawra & Ors.