Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Yashpal Mittal vs State Of Haryana And Others on 2 February, 2009

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                  CHANDIGARH


                                   C.W.P No. 13322 of 2007
                                   DECIDED ON : 02.02.2009

Yashpal Mittal
                                               ...Petitioner
           versus

State of Haryana and others
                                               ...Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT


Present : Mr. Sandeep Goyal, Advocate,
          for the petitioner.

           Mr. R. D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana.

           Mr. R. S. Madan, Advocate,
           for respondent No.2.


SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL)

The petitioner-a Municipal Councillor of Karnal, seeks a direction to the State Government and HUDA authorities to get the building of civil dispensary vacated from respondent No.4- Superintendent of Police, Traffic at Karnal.

The undisputed facts are that HUDA constructed a building for civil dispensary in Sector-6, Karnal. The said building was constructed in order to provide medical facilities to the residents of Sector-6 and nearby area. Instead of running the civil dispensary, the said premises was handed over to the Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Karnal as a temporary arrangement on 20.04.2000. It appears that the aforesaid building was given to Superintendent of Police, Traffic, Karnal for C.W.P No. 13322 of 2007 -2- a period of five years which has also expired. Respondent No.4, however, is not vacating the premises as no other alternative accommodation has been provided to him by the State Government. The petitioner's grievance is that as a result of non- vacation of the premises, the civil dispensary has not been opened and the residents of the area are deprived of the medical facilities.

Learned State counsel on instructions from Inspector Harpal Singh submits that efforts are being made to find out an alternative building to shift the office of respondent No.4 and to vacate the dispensary premises. He submits that there is every likelihood that the respondent No.4 shall shift to some alternative accommodation within a period of four months.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the totality of circumstances and fact that respondent No.4 will have to ultimately shift its office to some other alternative accommodation, I dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent No.4 to vacate the premises of the civil dispensary positively before 30.06.2009.

FEBRUARY 02, 2009                                (SURYA KANT)
shalini                                              JUDGE