Research › Search › Judgment

Punjab High Court · body

2018 DIGILAW 4820 (PNJ)

Joginder Singh Hooda v. State Of Haryana

2018-12-20

ARUN PALLI, KRISHNA MURARI

body2018
JUDGMENT Krishna Murari, C.J. (Oral) - This intra court appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment and order dated 20.02.2018 dismissing the writ petition filed by the appellants herein. 2. The writ petition was filed seeking the following main reliefs:- ii) A writ in the nature of mandamus/certiorari quashing the letter dated 05.09.2017 (Annexure P-14) issued by Shri Naresh Kaushik, MLA, Bahadurgarh and getting it sanctioned regarding decreasing the area for construction of the road and allowing not to demolish the constructed area on the government land which is meant for the road on both sides of Jua Drain for accommodating his own persons and relatives whose names are given in the body of the writ petition and further directing the authorities to demolish the houses of the persons who are equally standing on the same footing but belong to opposite party as the sanctioning of the decreasing of the area is illegal, arbitrary, unconstitutional, irregular and against the provisions of Haryana Municipal Act, 1973 and the rules framed thereunder which are called Haryana Municipal Drainage and Sanitation Bye-Laws, 1977; iii) Further a writ in the nature of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to demolish all the buildings which come in the original area of the road on both the sides of Jua Drain; iv) Further a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents not to discriminate between two individuals standing on the same footing by demolishing the houses of some of the petitioners who belong to opposite party adjusting the houses of the persons who have been mentioned in the body of the writ petition and belong to ruling party; v) Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus staying the demolition in toto or if done be done to all the buildings which come in the government land meant for the road on both sides of Jua Drain in Bahadurgarh; 3. Learned Single Judge dismissed the writ petition by making the following observations:- "A writ of certiorari cannot be issued for quashing of letter, which has been written by the local MLA to the political head of the State i.e. Chief Minister. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any action of the respondent-authorities, they are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy." 4. In case the petitioners are aggrieved by any action of the respondent-authorities, they are at liberty to avail the appropriate remedy." 4. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently contended that since the Chief Minister made an endorsement on the impugned letter "approved", the authorities are bound to act thereupon, as it infringes the rights of the appellants-petitioners and the same deserves to be quashed and the learned Single Judge has committed an illegality in dismissing the writ petition on the ground that the same would not be maintainable. 5. We are also of the considered opinion that in so far as the relief claimed for quashing the letter, the writ petition would not be maintainable because it is a private communication. In so far as any action taken by the authorities in view of the endorsement of approval by the Chief Minister is concerned, it is always open to the appellants-petitioners to challenge the same in case any of their rights have been infringed or if they have any locus in that regard. Learned Single Judge has already taken care of giving liberty to the appellants-petitioners to avail appropriate remedy in case they are aggrieved by any action of the respondents authorities. 6. In so far as reliefs (iii) to (v) are concerned, in case the appellants-petitioners are aggrieved and any of their rights have been infringed by the building standing on the original area of road, it is always open to them to approach the authorities under the relevant statute and directly approaching this Court by way of writ under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, in our opinion, is not liable to be entertained. 7. In view of the above facts and discussion, there is no infirmity in the judgment of the learned Single Judge which may require any interference. The appeal is devoid of merits and stands dismissed in limine.