Mini Arora and Ors. Vs Deputy Commissioner, Mohali and Others

¶1

CWP-1838-2024 (O&M) and 1 CWP-14787-2024 (O&M)

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

(252) Date of Decision : 21.04.2025

¶4

1. CWP-1838-2024 (O&M) Mini Arora and others …Petitioners

¶5

Vers u s

¶6

Deputy Co m missioner, Mohali and others ...Respondents 2. CWP-14787-2024 (O&M) Spangle Co n dos Resident Welfare Associat i on …Petitioner Vers u s

¶7

State of Pu n jab and another ...Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

¶9

Present: Mr. S.S. Virk, Advocate for the petitioners in CWP-1838-2024. Mr. Suman Jain, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP-147 8 7-2024 and for respondents No.6 to 9 in C W P-1838-2024.

¶10

Mr. Teevar Sharma, AAG, Pu n jab for respondents No.1 to 4 in C W P-1838-2024 and for respondent No.1 in CWP-1 4 787-2024.

¶11

Mr. G.S. Khokhar, Advocate for respondent No.2-MC, Zira k pur, in CWP-14787-2024.

¶12

Mr. Naginder Singh Vashist, A dvocate for respondent No.5- MC, Zira k pur in CWP-1838-2024.

¶13

**** KULDEEP TIWARI, J.(ORAL)

¶14

Both the instant petitions are a m enable to be decided together , as

¶15

a common issue is involved therein, with re g ard to the consercration of a s m all

¶16

idol (Shivli n g), in the common area, there f ore, both the instant petitions are

¶17

MANPREET SINGH 2025.04.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶18

CWP-1838-2024 (O&M) and 2 CWP-14787-2024 (O&M)

¶19

taken up to g ether for their adjudication.

¶20

The petitioners in CWP-1838 - 2024, has approached this Co u rt, seeking m a ndamus upon the official re s pondents, to ensure removal of unauthorized encroachment on the Publi c Space/Common Area/Park, i n a residential s ociety, wherein, the said idol (Shivling) was placed. The b a sic foundation, as laid down by the petitione r s, seeking mandamus, is that t he Residential Welfar Association (RWA) , in collusion with some other pers o ns, without ha v ing a prior sanction of any aut h ority(ies), are trying to modify t he common ar e a, which is ear-marked as gree n area, in the master plan, wher e as, in the sec o nd petition i.e.CWP-14787- 2 024, the petitioner therein, h as challenged the notice dated 07.05.2024 ( A nnexure P-12), as issued un d er Section 19 5 -D of the Punjab Municipal A c t, 1911 (hereinafter referred to as ‘the Act of 1911’), and the final notice dat e d 12.06.2024 (Annexure P-15), as issued und e r Section 220 of the Act of 1911, wherethrough, the directi o ns were passe d upon the petitioner, to remove t he temporary temple constructi o n, within seve n days. Fetching grievance fro m the said two notices, the instant petition wa s filed.

¶21

As far as, CWP-1838-2024 is c oncerned, wherethrough, a wri t of mandamus i s sought, this Court is of a fir m view that the prayer made in t he said petition, is in fact, rendered infruc t uous, as the Municipal Cou n cil concerned, has already taken the require d action, by issuing notices un d er Section 19 5 -D and Section 220 of the Act o f 1911, therefore, no further as k ed for directio n is required to be passed in the s aid petition. 4. So far as, CWP-14787-2024 i s concerned, wherein, the noti c es (supra), is u nder challenge, it is importan t to note here that the final no t ice MANPREET SINGH2025.04.25 14:07 issued und e r Section 220 of the Act of 1911, is in fact, appealable order, in I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

¶22

CWP-1838-2024 (O&M) and 3 CWP-14787-2024 (O&M)

¶23

view of the provisions of Section 225 of th e ibid Act. However, the petitio n er, without av a iling the statutory remedy of a p peal, has straightway approac h ed this Court, p rimarily, on the reason of pend e ncy of other writ petition.

¶24

In view of the above, this Cou r t is of the considered opinion t h at the petitio n er(s), can be relegated to t he learned Appellate Autho r ity concerned, t o challenge the impugned noti c es. In case, the petitioner(s) pr e fer an appeal, b efore the learned Appellate A u thority concerned, within 15 d a ys from the d a te of passing of this order, the l atter shall decide the same wit h in three mont h s thereafter.

¶25

The interim directions regardi n g dismantling of the structure, as issued by t h is Court, is ordered to remain in operation, till the decision is ta k en on the appl i cation, if so, preferred by the p e titioner for interim stay, or till t he next 30 d ays, whichever is earlier. T he learned Appellate Autho r ity concerned, i s at liberty to decide the applic a tion for stay, if so preferred by t he petitioner(s ) in CWP-14787-2024, on its o w n merits.

¶26

Furthermore, the petitioners in CWP-1838-2024, are restraine d to construct o r raise any kind of structure, on t he said land, till a final decisio n is taken by th e learned Appellate Authority concerned.

¶27

Consequently, both the instant petition(s) are disposed of . 9. Pending applications, if any, st a nd disposed of accordingly. 10. Photocopy of this order be pl a ced on the connected case file, as

¶28

numbered a b ove.

¶29

(KULDEEP TIWARI) JUDGE April 21, 2 0 25 MANPREET SINGH Manpreet Whether speaking/reaso n ed : Yes/No 2025.04.25 14:07 I attest to the accuracy andauthenticity of this Whether reportable : Yes/No order/judgment

Mini Arora and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner, Mohali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mini Arora and Ors. v. Deputy Commissioner, Mohali and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Rozy Vs State of Punjab and Others

Rajendra Ispat Private Limited Vs the State of Punjab and Others

Shakti Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Majed Abdullah Alarifi Vs Union of India and Ors.

Sukhdayal and Others Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shaukat @ Sokat Vs State of Haryana and Others