CWP No. 9212 of 2010 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 9212 of 2010 Date of Decision: 09.03.2011 Harinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 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 : None for the petitioner. Mr. Rupinder Khosla, Addl. A.G. Punjab, for respondent No.1. Mr. H.S.Brar, Advocate, for respondents No.2 and 3. **** RANJAN GOGOI, C.J.(Oral) This Public Interest Litigation has been filed seeking the following reliefs:- i) To issue a writ mandamus directing the respondent to construct the Primary School over the land as shown and kept for Primary School in the site plan Annexures P-1 and P-2 without any further delay in the interest of justice and not to defeat the very purpose of the same. ii) To issue a writ in the nature of certiorari to quash the sanction of the such acts which are in violation of the siteplan/master plan/development plan and zoning plan of a planned city like Mohali at the time of the initial zoning/site plan of the planned Mohali City. CWP No. 9212 of 2010 [2] iii) A writ in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondent from raising any unauthorized construction over the land earmarked for the Primary School purpose and any other construction is in violation of the site plan/master plan/development plan and zoning plan of a planned city like Mohali which preserves the site for the Primary School be issued and any construction raised over the same other than Primary School purposes may kindly be ordered to be demolished. iv) A writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the clearance and permissions granted to the building plans for addition alteration and construction of the site plan/master plan/development plan and zoning plan of a planned city like Mohali which preserves the site for the Primary School be issued and any construction raised may kindly be ordered to be stayed and demolished; v) A writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents authorities to discharge their statutory obligations and duties in respect of the Primary School and space and to book the erring persons after holding inquiry in the matter;” The respondent No.2 has filed a written statement contending that the matter stands adjudicated by this Court in an earlier proceeding i.e. Civil Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2009 and the present Public Interest Litigation has been filed without mentioning the order dated 09.04.2010 disposing of the aforesaid writ petition i.e. CWP No. 14094 of 2009. It is contended by learned counsel for the respondent No.2 that the Public Interest Litigation has not been filed bonafide and is merely an attempt to over come the earlier order passed by this Court. A copy of the aforesaid order dated 09.04.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2009 has been enclosed to the reply filed by the respondent No.2. CWP No. 9212 of 2010 [3] There is none to represent the petitioner at the hearing. Though liberty was given to the petitioner to file a rejoinder as against the reply filed by the respondent No.2, since September, 2009, no rejoinder has been filed. In the aforesaid circumstances, we have perused the contents of the writ petition, reply filed by the respondent No.2 as well as the order dated 19.04.2010 passed by this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2009. A reading of the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2010 passed in Civil Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2009 goes to disclose that the subject matter of the present Public Interest Litigation is identical to the one that has been adjudicated upon in Civil Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2009. Infact in the order 19.4.2010 disposing of the said writ petition, in para No.6 the following findings have been recorded by this Court which would be relevant to the present case:- “6. I have not been shown through any master plan or demarcation of the property as vacant land or park. Several decisions which the learned counsel appearing for the petitioners relied on refer to situation when Courts have interfered to restore the user of the property to be in conformity with the zoning regulations. There is nothing on record to show that there is any notification relating to the disputed property as reserved to be an open space or for establishing a park. The lay out plan under the Rules 1974 is only the plan that is approved by the Town Planner and the copy of the blue print filed by the learned counsel appearing for the respondents at the time of arguments shows the property to be used for establishing a market. The petitioners cannot seek for a restraint in the manner sought for in the petition without proving that there is any violation of the lay out plan. The writ petition itself is based on a wrong assumption that a master plan exists where the property is reserved as a permanent vacant piece of property.” CWP No. 9212 of 2010 [4] It is our considered view that the aforesaid findings recorded in Civil Writ Petition No. 14094 of 2009 adequately covers the issue involved in the present Public Interest Litigation. Consequently, the present Public Interest Litigation cannot be kept pending for any further hearing. We accordingly dismiss the same, however, without any order as to costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE 09.03.2011 'ravinder'