Search Results Page
Search Results
1 - 3 of 3 (0.30 seconds)The Consumer Protection Act, 1986
Tek Chand Arora vs Punjab Haryana High Court Chandigarh & ... on 4 December, 2014
8. The next submission of counsel for the complainant is that Sessions Judge, Faridkot wrote letter to OPs for not raising construction touching the boundary wall of Session Court at Faridkot. The counsel for the complainant relied upon letter addressed to Registrar General Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh, vide Ex.C-15 dated 04.12.2012 in this regard followed by another letter Ex.C-16 dated 21.05.2013 and another letter Ex.C-17 dated 19.07.2013. Letter of Executive Engineer to Administrator PUDA Bathinda Ex.C-18 and plan Ex.C-19. We find that plot no. 6-C is near Sessions House Faridkot, as shown in Ex.C-19 on the record. The counsel for OPs now appellant cited judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court in Tek Chand Arora versus Punjab and Haryana High Court Chandigarh in Civil Writ Petition no. 12630 of 2014 decided on 03.12.2014. The Hon'ble High Court observed in order in writ petition that construction of new Sessions House is yet to begin as it is still at the part of planning stage. The area purchased by the petitioner is 200 sq. yard, whereas the area of the Sessions House is seven acres. This construction cannot be planned in such area. It is open to the respondent to plan construction in such an area so as to protect Sessions House from any pursuable threat. Letter dated 04.12.2012 written by Sessions Judge Faridkot Ex.C-15 was quashed for not raising the construction. We find that plot no. 6-C which is adjacent to Sessions House as shown in the plan Ex.C-19 and as such some distance has to be left between the residence of the private houses and Sessions House for the purpose of protecting the Sessions House against the possible security threat.
1