Subzimandi Aarhti Association and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

Subzimandi Aarhti Association and Others Vs Ut Chandigarh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the petitioners; the writ petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lacs), to be deposited with the Treasurer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.

Issue for consideration

Whether the instant writ petition is maintainable, given that it contains two contradictory prayers — one revealing the petitioners' acquiescence to participate in the ongoing process, and the other questioning the validity of the adoption order. +1 more

Court's answer

The Bench, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners for a considerable duration, was not convinced of the maintainability of the writ petition, especially because it contained two contradictory prayers — one revealing acquiescence in the ongoing process and the other questioning the validity of the adoption order.

Ratio / Principle

Prima facie the writ petition was merely a tool deployed to somehow scuttle the ongoing process; on this basis the writ petition was dismissed.

Key takeaways

Since the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 (which specifically deal with lease by auction and management of such properties) stood adopted, the conduct of the present e-auction on leasehold basis, being in consonance therewith, could not be faulted. (This passage follows the Senior Counsel's submission and the Court's continuation of that reasoning; attribution to the Court rests on the flow into the dismissal paragraph.)ratio¶¶17

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court at Chandigarh (oral judgment of Sureshwar Thakur, J., bench comprising Sureshwar Thakur and Vikas Suri, JJ.), 20.03.2025, CWP-7839-2025: The writ petition filed by the Subzimandi Aarhti Association and others against U.T. Chandigarh and others was dismissed as non-maintainable at the threshold. After hearing counsel for a considerable duration, the Bench was not convinced of maintainability, particularly because two contradictory prayers had been made — one revealing the petitioners' acquiescence to participate in the ongoing process (disposal of sites by e-auction on leasehold basis), and the other questioning the validity of the adoption order adopting the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007. The Court noted that the 2007 Rules, which specifically deal with lease by auction and management of such properties, stood adopted by the State Agricultural Marketing Board, U.T. Chandigarh, or the competent authority, so that the conduct of the present auction could not be faulted; prima facie, the writ petition appeared to be merely a tool to scuttle the ongoing process. The petition was dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs. 2,00,000 (Two Lacs), payable to the Treasurer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

[163] CWP-7839-2025 Date of Decision: 20.03.2025

SUBZIMANDI AARHTI ASSOCIATION, S.C.F. No.13, SECTOR-26, SUBZI MANDI, SECTOR-26, CHANDIGARH & OTHERS

..... PETITIONERS

VERSUS

U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ......RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURESHWAR THAKUR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI

Present: Dr. Karambir Singh Nalwa, Advocate for the petitioners.

Mr. Ankur Mittal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Ms. Svaneel Jaswal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. P.P. Chahar, Sr. Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Saurabh Mago, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Karan Jindal, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana.

Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate assisted by Mr. Nitesh Jhanji, Advocate Mr. Sumeet Jain, Addl. Standing Counsel/U.T, Chandigarh & Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for the U.T. Chandigarh/ for the respondent(s).

SURESHWAR THAKUR, J. (ORAL)

After having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners for a considerable duration of time, this Bench is not convinced about the maintainability of the instant writ petition. Moreso, especially when two contradictory prayers have been made in the instant writ petition, one of which reveals the acquiescence of the present petitioners to participate in the ongoing process and the other with respect to the validity of the adoption order.

Learned Senior Counsel representing the respondent(s) has also drawn our attention to the minutes of the meeting, wherebys, it was decided to follow/adopt the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 (for short “the 2007 Rules”). It is submitted that as the sites in question are being disposed of by way of e-auction on lease hold basis and the 2007 Rules specifically deal with lease by

ANJAL GUPTA 2025.03.25 09:45 I attest to the accuracy andauction and management of such properties. Further given the above, and, also integrity of this document

CWP-7839-2025 (2)

the said Rules standing adopted by the State Agricultural Marketing Board, U.T. Chandigarh, or by the competent authority, thereupon, the conducting of the present auction, thus in consonance therewith, that cannot be faulted with.

Since therebys it is candidly revealed that prima facie the instant writ petition is merely a tool deployed to somehow or the other, rather to scuttle the ongoing process, as such, the instant writ petition is hereby dismissed with exemplary costs of Rs.2,00,000 (Two Lacs), to be deposited with the Treasurer of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.

(SURESHWAR THAKUR) JUDGE

(VIKAS SURI) JUDGE MARCH 20, 2025 ANJAL Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether reportable : Yes/No

ANJAL GUPTA 2025.03.25 09:45 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document