Court On Its Own Motion vs Chandigarh Administration

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2020 Supreme(P&H) 239

RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration – Respondent

Advocates Appeared:
Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate (Amicus curiae) & Ms. Pushp Jain, Advocate Mr. M. L. Sarin, Senior Advocate (Amicus Curiae) with Mr. Nitin Sarin, Advocate, for the Appellants in CWP No.18253 of 2009; Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Amandeep Singh, Advocate, for the Appellant in CWP No.12284 of 2017; Mr. Siddharth Gupta, Advocate, for the Appellant in CWP No.12280 of 2017; Mr. Pankaj Jain, Sr. Standing Counsel UT Chandigarh with Mr. Jai Veer Chandail, Addl. Government Pleader Ms. Deepali Puri, Advocate, for the UT Chandigarh; Ms. Shubhra Singh, Addl.AG, Haryana, Mr. Vikas Mohan Gupta, Addl.AG, Punjab, Mr. Vikas Suri, Advocate, Court Commissioner, Dr. B Singh in person, for the Respondent; Mr. Chetan Mittal, Assistant Solicitor General of India with Mr. Varun Issar, Central Government Standing Counsel, for the Rrespondent No.3; Mr. Gurminder Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Gurnoor Singh Sandhu, Advocate, for the Respondent in CWP No.18253 of 2009; Mr. Sandeep Khunger, Ms. Ramneeq Kaur and Ms. Nitika Jaura, Advocates, for the MC Naya Gaon, in CWP Nos.12280, 12355 of 2017 and COCP No.3088 of 2015 and CWP No.18253 of 2009; Mr. Ajay Aggarwal, Advocate, for the Applicant in CM No.15057-CWP of 2018 in CWP No.12284 of 2017; Mr.Sube Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondents no.6 to 13 in CWP No.18253 of 2009; Mr. Sandeep Moudgill, Advocate, for the MC Panchkula in CWP No.18253 of 2009; Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate, for the Respondent No.3 in COCP No.3088 of 2015

JUDGMENT

Rajiv Sharma, J. - This common order shall dispose of all the aforesaid seven petitions since identical questions of facts and law are involved in the same.

2. A letter was sent by one Sh. Gautam Khanna drawing the attention of this Court towards the problems faced by the Sukhna Lake in Chandigarh. The Court took cognizance of the same and the notice was issued to the Chandigarh Administration,returnable for 21.12.2009 vide order dated 28.11.2009.

3. Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate was appointed as Amicus Curiae to represent the cause espoused in this writ petition. The registry was directed to hand over one copy of the paper book to her within a peiod of seven days. Ms. Tanu Bedi, Advocate was directed to file formal writ petition incorporating all the pleas, which were sought to be raised during the course of arguments.

4. Learned Amicus Curiae filed formal writ petition. In the writ petition, there was averment to the letter dated 18.11.2009 written by one resident named Sh. Gautam Khanna, who had drawn the attention of this Court towards the problems of silt in the lake whi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2020 Supreme(P&H) 239

RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHUCourt On Its Own Motion – AppellantVersusChandigarh Administration – Respondent

Cases Referred (8)

RAJIV SHARMA, HARINDER SINGH SIDHU
Court On Its Own Motion – Appellant
Versus
Chandigarh Administration – Respondent