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 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Sunita vs State Of Haryana And Others on 9 January, 2012

Bench: Hemant Gupta, A.N. Jindal

            IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH

                    Civil Writ Petition No. 20817 of 2011

                    Date of decision: January 09, 2012


Sunita                                                    .. Petitioner

                           Vs.

State of Haryana and others                               .. Respondents


Coram:       Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta
             Hon'ble Mr. Justice A.N. Jindal

Present:     Mr. Balraj Gujjar, Advocate, for the petitioner.

             Ms. Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 to 4.

             Mr. Hari Om Attri, Advocate, for respondent No.5.

Hemant Gupta, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has claimed the writ of mandamus directing the respondent No.2 to take action against respondent No.5 for cancellation of license under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 (for short, 'the Act').

The grievance of the petitioner is that in terms of the license, the said respondent has to allot plots/flats to the economical weaker section, but in violation of the conditions of the scheme, the advertisement has been issued. The violation is alleged to be that the condition of possession of Below Poverty Line (BPL) card is not mentioned and second that there is no reference that the preference will be given to the BPL families listed in the same town followed by district and the State.

In reply, the State has pointed out that the advertisement issued was not in terms of the policy, therefore, a direction has been issued to respondent No.5 to re-advertise the plots in accordance with the policy Civil Writ Petition No. 20817 of 2011 -2- dated 3.2.2010.

Since no plot/flat has been allotted in terms of the advertisement issued, we do not find that there is any blatant violation of the policy dated 03.02.2010, which warrants cancellation of the license of respondent No.5.

In view of the said fact, the present writ petition is dismissed.




                                                 (Hemant Gupta)
                                                     Judge


January 09, 2011                                   (A.N. Jindal)
vimal/deepak                                          Judge