Allowed

Kewal Krishan and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC3 Apr 2014CWP/19250/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court quashed the notification constituting Nagar Panchayat Mamdot. It held the authority failed to consider objections submitted by persons who did not personally appear. The writ was allowed to ensure proper procedural compliance. The order was remanded to process objections in accordance with law. Parties to bear own costs.

What did the court decide?

Quashed the notification dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure P-13) constituting Nagar Panchayat Mamdot and directed respondents to process objections in accordance with law.

Kewal Krishan and Ors. Vs State of… — Public Procurement and Tenders | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

I N THE HI GH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDI GARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.19250 of 2013 (O&M) DATE OF DECI SI ON: 03.04.2014

¶3

Kewal Krishan and others

¶4

…..Petitioners

¶5

versus

¶6

State of Punjab and others

¶7

.....Respondents

¶8

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTI CE SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE HON’BLE MR. JUSTI CE ARUN PALLI

¶9

Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with

¶10

Mr. BBS Randhawa, Advocate for the petitioner

¶11

Mr. D.S. Brar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab

¶12

SANJAY KI SHAN KAUL, CHI EF JUSTI CE : (Oral)

¶13

The petitioners have filed the present writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India seeking quashing of the notification dated 31.10.2012/ Annexure P-7 (wrongly mentioned as 21.10.2012) under Section 4(1) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 inviting objections to the conversion of the area mentioned therein from villages to transitional area for purposes of constituting Nagar Panchayat Mamdot, District Ferozepur and the notification dated 1.8.2013/ Annexure P-13 (wrongly mentioned as 5.8.2013) issued thereafter constituting the said Nagar Panchayat.

¶14

We had heard learned counsel for the parties on the last occasion when the arguments were concluded.

¶15

Chand Parkash 2014.04.03 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶16

CW P- 19520 - 2013

¶17

- 2 -

¶18

It emerged from the submissions that six persons, who had filed objections, had withdrawn the same. However, there was no response to the plea of the petitioners that objections had actually been filed by couple of hundred people and, thus, we had asked the records to be produced to see whether the objections of the persons, who had not withdrawn the sam e, had been considered even though they had personally not appeared to support the objections. This was so as the mandate in law was only to consider the objections without there being a mandatory requirem ent of presence of the objectors.

¶19

Records have been produced before us and it is conceded by the learned Additional Advocate General that the impugned order at Annexure P-13 has been passed only after noticing that objections stand withdrawn, i.e ., there is no discussion whatsoever about the other set of objections.

¶20

The aforesaid being the position, there is no option but to quash the order dated 1.8.2013 (Annexure P-13) leaving it open to the respondents to process the objections filed before them in accordance with law. A general notice m ay be issued for personal hearing so that whichever objector wants to participate in the same m ay do so. On a fresh order being passed, if it is adverse to the petitioners, naturally, the option would be available to assail that notification in accordance with law.

¶21

The petition is allowed in the aforesaid terms leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

¶22

03.04.2014 ( ARUN PALLI ) parkash* JUDGE

¶23

Chand Parkash 2014.04.03 17:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Kewal Krishan and Ors. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Kewal Krishan and Ors. v. State of Punjab 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

Sohan Singh Vs Union of India etc.

Preeti Vs Hafed and Ors.

Punjab State Coop. Supply & Mktg. Fed. Ltd. &Anr. Vs Rakesh Misra and Ors.

Yudhveer Singh Vs Director General & Anr.

Gurpal Singh and Anr. Vs Food Corporation of India and Ors.

Paramjit Singh Bharaj Vs State of Punjab and Ors.