IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12234 of 2010 Date of Decision : July 14, 2010. Narender Singh Dhillon .....Petitioner versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.S.Rekhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- 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? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.K.S.Sidhu, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. In view of the nature of the order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to seek any counter-reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioner is a English and Country-made Wine Contractor having its shop at Village Umran Nangal, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar. Vide the impugned order dated 6.7.2010 (Annexure P- 4), he has been directed to shift his shop from 100 meters towards C.W.P.No .12234 of 2010 2 Jalandhar side from the limits of Rayya Market Committee. The petitioner's grievance is that the above-stated order has been passed without notice to him and at his back. Since the impugned order adversely affects the business prospects of the petitioner and the same has been passed without any notice to him and behind his back, the same is hereby quashed for non- observation of the principles of natural justice. However, the respondents shall be at liberty to pass a fresh order in accordance with the Policy/ Law. The writ petition stands allowed in the above terms. Dasti. July 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE