CWP No. 2605 of 2008

[1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH

CWP No. 2605 of 2008

Date of Decision: 4.9.2008

Leela Bhawan Market Welfare Society and others

...Petitioners

versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT

Present :

Mr. Raj Mohan Singh, Advocate for the petitioner

Ms. Madhu Dayal, DAG, Punjab for respondent No.1

Mr. Vinish Singla, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 4

Mr. Divanshu Jain, Advocate for respondent No.3

Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for respondent No.5

*****

T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice (Oral)

This petition purports to have been filed in public interest. It

alleges violation of Municipal Corporation Buildings Bye-Laws, 1997 by

respondent No. 3 who has constructed a Multi storied building named Prem

Heights Multiplex at Sibia Colony in Patiala. A mandamus directing official

respondents to look into the matter and take appropriate steps for removal of

the violations has been prayed for by the petitioner association who claims

to be a welfare society comprising shop-keepers of Leela Bhawan Market

and residents of Ajit Nagar situate in the vicinity of the building in question.

Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and counsel

appearing for the respondents, we see no reason to issue any directions in

exercise of our writ jurisdiction in public interest. We say so because the

CWP No. 2605 of 2008

[2]

petitioners have not admittedly approached the competent authority,

namely, Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Patiala for

appropriate action against the alleged violations. The proper course for the

petitioners was to first demand action by the corporation authorities for the

alleged violations and upon their failure to take such action, approach this

Court for appropriate directions.

Learned counsel for the petitioners, however, argued that this

writ petition could be treated as a representation and the corporation

directed to take action on the same. We are not impressed by that

submission. We see no reason why the petitioners should not themselves file

a proper representation before the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation,

Patiala setting out the nature of violations and praying for appropriate action

in accordance with law i.e. particularly when the building in question is

alleged to have been completed in 2001 and let out to different occupants

thereafter who are making use of the same. We are also informed that

municipal authorities have already issued a completion certificate in favour

of the owners which implies that there were either no violations or the

violations were duly compounded. Be that as it may, the petitioners would

still be free to make a representation to the Commissioner, Municipal

Corporation, Patiala, in which event, the Municipal Commissioner is

expected to look into the same and initiate appropriate action, if any, called

for under the provisions of the Act and the bye-laws. In case, the issue has

already been examined and appropriate orders regarding compounding of

the alleged violations already passed, the Commissioner shall on receipt of

the representation from the petitioners intimate to them about the said fact.

Liberty is reserved to the petitioners to seek such redress as may be

CWP No. 2605 of 2008

[3]

permissible in law against any such intimation or order.

With these directions, the Civil Writ Petition is disposed of

leaving the parties to bear their own costs.

(T.S.THAKUR)

CHIEF JUSTICE

(SURYA KANT)

04.09.2008

JUDGE

'ravinder'