Disposed

Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School Kurukshetra & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC5 May 2014CWP/1782/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This High Court disposed of a Writ Petition regarding an encroachment on a public street by a private builder. The Court directed the removal of obstructions, the Municipal Council to construct the road by a specific deadline, and awarded costs of Rs. 25,000 to the builder for wasting court time, escalateable to Rs. 50,000 if not deposited.

What did the court decide?

Directing removal of obstructions, road construction by 31.08.2014, and awarding costs of Rs. 25,000 to the encroaching builder.

Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.1782 of 2014 Date of Decision: May 05, 2014

¶3

Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School & anr. .....Petitioners versus

¶4

State of Haryana and others .....Respondents

¶5

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL.

¶6

Present : Mr.Puneet Bali, Senior Advocate with Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana. Mr.Bikram Chaudhary, Advocate, for Municipal Council-Thanesar. Mr.S.S.Dinarpur, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

¶7

-.-

¶8

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

¶9

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶10

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶11

¶12

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

¶13

Respondent No.5 is a private builder-cumdeveloper at Kurukshetra. He encroached upon the public street and constructed a wall and gate. The affected residents including the first petitioner-a School made complaints against this land grabbing and finding no action, have approached this Court.

¶14

On 21.03.2014, it was fairly stated by learned counsel for the Municipal Council that respondent No.5 had caused obstructions in a public passage despite notice issued to its proprietor. It was in this backdrop that we directed the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council to take lawful action

¶15

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶16

CWP No.1782 of 2014

¶17

[2]

¶18

and get the obstructions removed.

¶19

Respondent No.5 challenged that order in the Hon'ble Supreme Court but his SLP was dismissed on 04.04.2014. On that very day, when the matter was taken up for hearing, we were informed that no action had been taken in compliance to our order dated 21.03.2014. We thus issued show cause notice to the Executive Officer of the Municipal Council proposing harsh action. It was thereafter only that the encroachment was removed and the public street has been opened.

¶20

Respondent No.5 says that he has voluntarily removed the obstructions. Such a plea is inconsequential for the reason that it was after dismissal of his SLP only when he had no other choice that the public street was vacated.

¶21

The Executive Officer of the Municipal Council is present in Court. He undertakes that no such obstruction shall be allowed to be caused in future. He also undertakes that the road shall be constructed at the earliest. We direct the Municipal Council, Thanesar, to complete the requisite formalities and construct the road by 31.08.2014, failing which the affected residents of the area shall be at liberty to initiate contempt of Court proceedings.

¶22

As regard to respondent No.5, though he undertakes that in future he shall not encroach upon the public street, however, having regard to the fact that the court time has been wasted due to his brazen illegal action, we saddle him with the costs of Rs.25,000/-. He is directed to deposit the same with the High Court Legal Services committee within two weeks from the date of receipt of copy of this order, failing which the cost amount shall stand

¶23

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

¶24

CWP No.1782 of 2014

¶25

[3]

¶26

increased to Rs.50,000/-.

¶27

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly. Dasti.

¶28

[SURYA KANT] JUDGE May 05, 2014 [LISA GILL] Mohinder JUDGE

¶29

Kumar Mohinder 2014.07.03 17:07 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh

Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School Kurukshetra & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Guru Nanak Senior Secondary School Kurukshetra & Anr. v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Satish Kumar Arora Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Krishna Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Garib Nawaz Hotels Pvt. Ltd. Vs Ut of Chandigarh etc. & Ano.

Lakhvinder Singh Vs Haryana Urban Development Authority and Ors.

Vinod Kumar and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Pawan Kumar and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others