Quashed

Rajener Gujjar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC23 Sept 2015CWP/12454/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside a notification on ward delimitation due to procedural non-compliance. The court held that objections were not considered as no reasoned order was passed, directing a fresh application of the Rules.

What did the court decide?

Impugned notification dated 19.05.2015 set aside with direction to decide objections afresh by a reasoned order within two weeks.

Rajener Gujjar Vs State of Haryana and… — Municipal and Town Planning | Punjab & Haryana HC (2015)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.12454 of 2015 (O&M) Date of Decision: 23.09.2015

¶4

¶5

Rajender Gujjar ... Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

State of Haryana & Ors. ... Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE P.B. BAJANTHRI

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

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

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Gaurav Singla, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG Haryana

¶17

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for respondent No.3

¶18

¶19

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶20

(1) The petitioner had admittedly submitted objections against delimitation and/or formation of the wards which were though dealt with on the file and rejected but no composite order communicating such rejection was passed or conveyed to the petitioner.

¶21

(2) It goes without saying that the proposal for delimitation of wards is to be sent to the State Government under Rule 8 of the Haryana Municipal Delimitation of Ward Rules, 1977. Such proposal must be in conformity with Rule 7 of these Rules and in view of Rule 9(c), the objections are required to be considered at the end of the Government. Rule 9(c) obligates that

¶22

the State Government “ shall consider all objections and

¶23

V.VISHAL 2015.10.08 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶24

��

¶25

�� ��

¶26

suggestions which may be received by it before the date so specified… ”. Similarly, Clause (d) of Rule 9 mandates that the Government shall pass an order determining the delimitation of wards of a Municipal Committee.

¶27

(3) The office note produced during the course of hearing cannot be, for want of reasons termed as an order rejecting the objections. Since it is a case of non-observance of the procedure contemplated under the Rules, the impugned notification dated 19.05.2015 (P11) is set aside with a direction that let the objections be decided afresh by way of a reasoned order, a copy of which, if the petitioner so desires and applies, be made available to him as per the Rules.

¶28

(4) The needful may be done within two weeks and thereafter fresh notification be issued as per law.

�� 

��

��

�� 

V.VISHAL 2015.10.08 15:06 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

Rajener Gujjar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajener Gujjar 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

M/S Sharma Fruit Company Bhawanigarh and Ors. Vs Administrator New Mandi Township Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Singh and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Kabaj Ram Gorsi and Anr. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ajit Pal Singh Mander Vs Punjab Urban Development Authority & Ors.

Charan Singh & Anr. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Poonam Rani Vs State Election Commission Haryana and Ors.