Dismissed
Mahesh Kumar Soni and Anr. v. State of Haryana and Ors.
Punjab & Haryana HCCWP/10630/2017
Case brief
from the order text
What is this about?
of 2017 [ 1 ] ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
What the court decided
AI extract
of 2017 [ 1 ] ***** IN THE HIGH COURT OF…
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Vinod Kumar 2017.11.22 10:07 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
CWP No.10630 of 2017
[ 1 ]
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.10630 of 2017 Date of decision:14.11.2017
Mahesh Kumar Soni and another …Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain
Present: Mr. Harinder Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioners. *****
Rakesh Kumar Jain, J.
The petitioners have prayed for the issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to allot the proposed shops/booths on the opposite side of the Bus Stand at the Collector rate of the year 2003-2004 in terms of the policy of the Haryana Government.
Counsel for the petitioners has submitted that the petitioners are in possession of the property in question as tenants. The State of Haryana has made a policy to sell the land, buildings and shops of the Municipal Committees/Municipal Councils, which are on lease/licence or on rent and fetching nominal income, to the persons in possession thereof by way of sale. In this regard, the Department of Urban Development, for the purpose of finalizing the sale price, constituted a Committee under the Chairmanship of the Deputy Commissioner of the District concerned. The petitioners have though made the prayer for allotment of shop but they did not disclose that they have already been offered Shop No.41 by the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, in the year 2008. The said document has been appended by the
CWP No.10630 of 2017 [ 2 ]
petitioners and brought to the notice of this Court for the first time by way of C.M. No.16382-CWP of 2017. It appears that the petitioners have deliberately concealed this document at the time of drafting the writ petition otherwise they would not have prayed for a direction to allot the shop/booth, for which the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, has already asked them to give their consent in writing vide letter dated 23.06.2008 in respect of Shop No.41.
Consequently, since the petitioners have not approached this Court with clean hands, therefore, the present petition is dismissed on the ground of concealment of facts. They are also burdened with nominal costs of `2,000/-. However, the petitioners may, if so advised, approach the Deputy Commissioner, Ambala, in terms of his letter dated 23.06.2008, for the purpose of allotment of shop(s)/booth(s).
November 14, 2017 ( Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge Whether speaking / reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioners have approached the Court with clean hands given their concealment of an earlier offer of Shop No.41 from 2008?
Mahesh Kumar Soni and another
State of Haryana and others
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court