Remanded

Beant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Apr 2013CWP/8715/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioners alleged fraud in flat sales and lack of approvals under the 1995 Act by respondents. The Court, without hearing the accused respondents or expressing views on merits, directed statutory authorities to hold an inquiry.

What did the court decide?

Directions to the Chief Administrator, GMADA and SSP, SAS Nagar Mohali to hold an enquiry and take action within one month.

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

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.8715 of 2013 Date of Decision : April 26, 2013

¶3

Beant Singh and others versus

¶4

State of Punjab and others

¶5

.....Petitioners

¶6

.....Respondents

¶7

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.

¶8

Present : Mr.Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Munisha Gandhi, Addl. AG, Punjab.

¶9

-.-

¶10

Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2.To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶14

Notice of motion to respondent Nos.1 & 2 only. On our asking, Ms.Munisha Gandhi, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on their behalf.

¶15

Let two copies of the writ petition be handed-over to the learned State counsel during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for nonprosecution.

¶16

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there is no necessity to issue notice of respondent Nos.2 and 4 to 6 nor any counter-reply is required from respondent Nos.1 & 3 at this stage.

¶17

CWP No.8715 of 2013

¶18

[2]

¶19

The grievance of the petitioners in this writ petition is that hundreds of innocent prospective buyers like them have been duped by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in the name of selling multi-storied flats in Sector-127, SAS Nagar Mohali, whereas there is only a small piece of land owned by them whereupon they have already constructed office building. According to the petitioners, there is no sufficient land available with respondent Nos.4 to 6 to construct and offer flats to their prospective buyers who have deposited the earnest money. It is the case of the petitioners that no CLU and other permissions from the Competent Authority have been obtained by respondent Nos.4 to 6 in accordance with the provisions of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning & Development Act, 1995 (for short, 'the 1995 Act')

¶20

We find from the record that the petitioners have already raised their grievance before the police authorities as well as Statutory Authority, namely, respondent No.2, established under the 1995 Act. It is averred by the petitioners that they met the police authorities and got recorded their statements but no action has been taken thereafter by the police authorities.

¶21

We have heard learned counsel for the petitioners in support of their allegations. We, however, are not inclined to express any views on merits of the allegations for the reason that no notice has been issued to respondent Nos.4 to 6 and they have not been heard at this stage. At the same time, if there is any substance in the accusations made by the petitioners, suffice it to observe that the authorities shall swing into action without any delay. Consequently and without expressing any views on merits, we dispose of this writ petition

¶22

CWP No.8715 of 2013 [3]

¶23

with a direction to the Chief Administrator, GMADArespondent No.2 and the Senior Superintendent of Police, SAS Nagar Mohali to look into the matter, hold an enquiry into the allegations levelled by the petitioners and take necessary action strictly in accordance with law as early as possible but not later than one month from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

¶24

Ordered accordingly.

¶25

Dasti.

¶26

(SURYA KANT) JUDGE $ April 26, 2013 (R.P.NAGRATH) Mohinder JUDGE

Beant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Beant Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & 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

Om Parkash & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Punjab etc.

Sarwan Singh Vs Distt.Judge Ropar etc.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs Raman Doomra, Advocate, Jalalabad, (Ferozepur)

Pole Star Star Public School Vs Employees Provident Fund Appellant & Anr.

Surat Singh Vs State of Haryana & Anr.