Punjab-Haryana High Court
Bharti Gupta vs Municipal Corporation, Faridabad And ... on 30 August, 2019
Author: Jitendra Chauhan
Bench: Jitendra Chauhan
CWP-23571-2019 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CWP-23571-2019
Date of decision: 30.8.2019
Dr.Bharti Gupta
...Petitioner
Versus
Municipal Corporation, Faridabad and another
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN
Present: Mr.Mohnish Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner
****
JITENDRA CHAUHAN, J.
This writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India has been filed for quashing the action dated 10.2.2019 (Annexure P-4) of sealing the premises i.e. marriage palace (Timpy Farm ) in plot No.1A and 2A, Block D-2, DLF Sector 10, Faridabad without passing of any order.
Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer to the extent that direction be issued to respondent No. 1, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to consider and decide the application dated 15.5.2018 (Annexure P-2) moved by the petitioner with regard to the regularization of the marriage palace, expeditiously.
Heard.
A complete set of paper book has been handed over to Mr.Vikrant Pamboo, DAG, Haryana in the Court today.
In view of the above, without adverting to the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 1, 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2019 10:11:46 ::: CWP-23571-2019 2 Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Faridabad to consider and decide the application dated 15.5.2018 (Annexure P-2) moved by the petitioner with regard to the regularization of the marriage palace, in accordance with law within eight weeks from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the judgment. In case, on consideration, the competent authority reaches to the conclusion that the benefit claimed by the petitioner is admissible to him, in such eventuality, the consequential relief be allowed to him, within a period of eight weeks thereafter. However, in case the competent authority feels that the relief claimed by the petitioner is not admissible or made out, in that case, a speaking order be passed in the matter.
30.8.2019 (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv JUDGE
Whether speaking / reasoned? Yes / No
Whether reportable? Yes / No
2 of 2
::: Downloaded on - 28-10-2019 10:11:46 :::