Disposed

Suresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 Mar 2013CWP/6150/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In CWP No. 6150 of 2013, the court directed the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, to decide the petitioners' representation regarding water drainage provision within two months after providing a hearing opportunity, citing it as their bounden duty.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula, to decide the petitioners' representation dated 7.1.2013 within two months after providing opportunity of hearing.

Suresh Kumar and Ors. Vs State… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 6150 of 2013

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 21.03.2013

¶4

Suresh Kumar and others

¶5

.... PETITIONERS

¶6

Versus

¶7

State of Haryana and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Sandeep Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioners, who are residents of Sector 21 Part-III, Panchkula, got allotted the plots from HUDA, where they have constructed their houses. The grouse of the petitioners is that the HUDA has not laid down any water drainage pipe in the said part of Sector 21, Panchkula, due to which the people are suffering and the roads are being frequently damaged. It is the case of the petitioners that in spite of various representations given by them, the HUDA authorities are not taking any step towards providing/laying down the water drainage pipe in the said area. In this regard, the last representation was submitted by the petitioners to the Estate Officer, Panchkula, on 7.1.2013, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-2.

¶14

CWP No. 6150 of 2013 -2-

¶15

Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the rainy season is ahead and before that, the HUDA authorities be directed to consider the aforesaid representation of the petitioners and to provide basic facilities/amenities, which they are bound to provide in the residential Sector established by them.

¶16

In view of the aforesaid facts, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to the Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula (respondent No.3 herein) to consider and decide the aforesaid representation dated 7.1.2013 (Annexure P-2), within a period of two months, after providing opportunity of hearing to the representative of the petitioners, in view of the legal position that it is the bounden duty of the HUDA to provide all the basic facilities and amenities in the residential Sectors, which have already been floated and the people, after constructing their houses are residing there. The Administrator is further directed to pass a speaking order, and in case, those facilities have not been provided till date, specific reasons for the same be recorded, so that the petitioners may proceed against the HUDA, in accordance with law.

¶17

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶18

( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) JUDGE

¶19

March 21, 2013 ndj

Suresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suresh Kumar and Ors. v. State of Haryana 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

Gurtej Singh Vs HUDA & Anr.

Dlf Ltd. Vs State of Haryana and Anr.

Chander Bhushan Jaiswal and Anr. Vs Haryana State Industries Dev. Corp. Ltd.

Bhawana/Vimpy Gaba Vs State of Haryana and Others

Laxmi Jain Vs HUDA & Others

Amit Saini Vs State of Haryana etc.