IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.7962 of 2009 Date of decision: May 25, 2009. Surinder Kumar ...Petitioner(s) v. Union of India & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Namit Gautam, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): Notice of motion. Shri Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, learned counsel, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter affidavit from the respondents. The petitioner seeks quashing of a communication dated 21.4.2009 (Annexure P-4) sent by the National Highway Authority of India (NHAI) to the Senior Regional Manager of HPCL asking the latter to de- energize the retail outlet allotted to the petitioner and located on National Highway No.1-A in village Rahpur, Tehsil Tanda, District Hoshiarpur. The aforesaid communication does suggest that the land occupied by the retail outlet of the petitioner is required for four-laning of NH-1-A. Copy of the aforesaid letter, however, has not been forwarded to the petitioner. The petitioner has placed on record yet another communication dated 17/18.4.2006 (Annexure P-2) which is addressed to the petitioner by the NHAI asking him to remove/shift the approach road/buffer strip logo, signboard etc. as the same were required to be removed for the widening of the NH No.1-A. The petitioner's case is that the same has been complied with and, thus, there is no obstruction caused by him in the widening of the national highway. According to the petitioner, the earlier communication dated 17/18.4.2006 having been complied with by him, there was no necessity for the NHAI to send communication dated 21.4.2009 to the Hindustan Petroleum Corporation Limited to de-energize the petitioner's retail outlet. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner at some length and on perusal of the aforesaid documents, it appears that the matter requires reconsideration by the Project Director of the NHAI. In the light of the two communications referred to above, let the said authority determine as to how much area of the petitioner is required for the widening of the highway. Suffice it to say that to the extent of the area required by the NHAI for widening of the NH No.1-A, the petitioner does not intend to cause any obstruction. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with a direction to the present Project Director, NHAI to reconsider the whole matter and thereafter determine as to how much area is required to be vacated by the petitioner for the aforesaid purpose. Till then, status quo shall be maintained. Dasti. May 25, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge