CWP No.6833 of 2009 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.6833 of 2009 Date of decision: May 6, 2009. Nathu Singh Jindal & Anr. ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...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 K.C. Rajput, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners seek quashing of the show cause notice dated 17.1.2003 (Annexure P-5) whereby the son of petitioner No.1 and brother of petitioner No.2 was called upon to show cause as to why the premises bearing plot No.177, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Sonepat be not resumed for being mis-used to run commercial activities, namely, a medical store. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioners at some length and on perusal of the material on record, I am of the considered view that the writ petition is totally frivolous and is liable to be dismissed on more than one count. CWP No.6833 of 2009 -: 2 :- It is well settled that a writ petition shall ordinarily be not maintainable against a show cause notice, inasmuch, as nothing precludes the noticee to submit his objections in response thereto, to enable the competent authority to take a final decision in an objective manner. The writ petition also suffers with inordinate delay and laches. The selective information disclosed in the writ petition does indicate that the petitioners had earlier filed a civil suit in the year 1989 against the disconnection of sewerage and water supply which was decreed by the civil court on 22.7.2000. It is thereafter that the respondents decided to proceed against the occupier of the premises and have served him with a show cause notice under Section 17(3) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (in short the 1977 Act). There is nothing on record to suggest that the occupier of the premises responded to the show cause notice or what happened thereafter. On the other hand, the petitioners claim that they had filed another civil suit in the year 2003 which was withdrawn by them as they had filed SLP No.19693-94 of 2007. The said SLP has been disposed of by the Hon'ble Supreme Court as infructuous along with a bunch of connected matters (Annexure P-8). It is the conceded position that the petitioners/occupiers of the premises are using the residential house No.177, Sector 14, Urban Estate, Sonepat for commercial purposes, namely, for running a medical store, in total violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment as well as the Haryana Urban Development (Disposal of Land and Building) Amendment Regulations, 1978, as amended vide Notification dated 12.1.1999, framed under the 1977 Act. CWP No.6833 of 2009 -: 3 :- On merits also, for the reasons assigned by this Court in the case of M/s Bharti Airtel Limited v. Haryana Urban Development Authority & Ors. (CWP No.20034 of 2006), decided on March 24, 2009, no case to interfere with the impugned action is made out. Dismissed. May 6, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge