HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** COCP No.566 of 2004 (O&M) Date of Decision: 27.07.2011 **** Vidya Bhulla & Anr . . . . Petitioners VS. JS Gill, IAS & Anr. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? **** Present: Mr. RL Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners Ms. Charu Tuli, Sr. DAG Punjab **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). These contempt proceedings were initiated on account of the alleged willful disobedience of the order dated July 28, 2003 passed by this Court in CR No.1692 of 2002 whereby the respondents were directed to implement the decision taken in a meeting held by the Chief Secretary, Government of Punjab on July 7, 2003 for the closure/shifting of the industrial units located in the residential area/Town Planning Scheme. (2). After due deliberations, the proceedings in the contempt petition were adjourned sine die to await the decision in CWP No.14592 of 2006 (Harjit Singh & Ors. v. State of COCP No.566 of 2004.doc - 2 – Punjab & Ors.) and other connected matters which have been filed by the affected industries. (3). The above-stated writ petition(s) have since been dismissed by a Co-ordinate Bench vide an order dated August 13, 2010 though by granting six months’ time to the industries to shift their units from the area of Town Planning Scheme No.5 Part – II, Phagwara. (4). Learned counsel for the contempt-petitioners fairly admits that the above-stated decision has been challenged by the industries in LPA No.45 of 2011 wherein ad interim stay has been granted in their favour. (5). That being so, it is difficult to opine that the official respondents have deliberately or willfully disobeyed the directions issued by the Single Bench vide order dated July 28, 2003 passed by this Court in CR No.1692 of 2002. (6). The contempt proceedings are accordingly dropped with liberty to the contempt-petitioner to initiate fresh contempt proceedings, if so required/advised, after the decision of the LPA Bench (7). Rules discharged. Disposed of. (8). Dasti . 27.07.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge