High CourtsSINGLE BENCH(2017) 06 P&H CK 0048

Sanjay and another vs State of Haryana and others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 19 June 2017

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harinder Singh Sidhu
RESULT
Disposed
CASE NUMBER
13859-2017

CourtKutchehry membership

More clarity. Every judgment.

Download court copies, explore connected cases and make more of every research session.

Loading membership options…

Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

Judgment

25 paragraphs · 253 words
1.

The petitioners have filed this writ petition seeking direction to

quash the impugned letters dated 06.06.2017 (Annexure P-5 and P-6). The

aforesaid letters have been issued by the Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Sonipat. Therein, a reference has been made of decision dated

03.03.2017 in CWP-4437-2017, where this Court had directed that an

opportunity be given to the petitioners before passing an eviction order.

Vide the impugned letters, the petitioners have been directed to appear

before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sonipat, to plead their

case alongwith documents at 03.00 p.m on 19.06.2017 and 20.06.2017.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners

were not party in the said petition mentioned in the impugned letters. He

further states that the petitioners have filed a civil suit for permanent

injunction for restraining the Municipal Corporation from dispossessing the

petitioners and from demolishing the premises. In the said suit the status

quo order has been issued.

3.

In my view, there is no merit in the petition. The impugned

notices are only show-cause-notices calling upon the petitioners to appear

before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Sonipat alongwith related

documents. No order for eviction or demolition has been passed against the

petitioners. It would be open to the petitioners to appear before the

authorities to plead that orders dated 03.03.2017 in CWP-4437-2017, is not

applicable in case of the petitioners and the petitioners are protected by

status quo passed by the Civil Court.

4.

No ground is made out for interference.

5.

The petition is disposed of.