IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6649 of 2008 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13-01-2009 Ram Phal Kundu ....Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA 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? 4. Present: Shri Ravi Kant Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Randhir Singh, Additional, AG, Haryana. Shri Kamal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral). CM No. 483 of 2009. Rejoinder is taken on record and CM disposed of. CWP No. 6649 of 2008. This petition has been filed in public interest. It prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to stop the construction of shopping booths in an area that is according to the petitioner, reserved for parking of vehicles inside what is known as Municipal Complex Safidon. The petitioner's case appears to be that the Municipal Complex at Safidon comprising a large number of shops described in the site plan enclosed with the petition, has a parking area inside the complex. A part of the said parking area, according to the petitioner, is now proposed to be utilised for construction of certain additional booths. The proposed construction it is alleged would further eat into the parking space and create congestion and consequent difficulties for not only the shop owners, but also for general public, visiting the area for shopping and other purposes. The petitioner, CWP No. 6649 of 2008 (2) therefore, prays for a mandamus directing the respondents to stop the proposed construction. In response to a notice issued by this Court, the respondent- Municipal Council, Safidon, has filed a counter affidavit and tried to justify its decision to construct the proposed shopping booths. The case of the respondent-Municipal Council, appears to be that the area in front of the shops comprising the shopping complex, is large enough to cater to the requirement of the customers and shop keepers visiting and working in the complex. The apprehension regarding congestion on account of conversion of a part of the vacant area into shopping booths, has according to the respondent's counsel, no basis whatsoever. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and perused the record. The only question that, in our opinion, arises for our consideration is whether the proposed construction of the shopping booths is going to cause any irreparable injury to those, who are working as shop keepers or cause any inconvenience or discomfort to others, who may visit the shopping area for shopping purposes. The answer to the question largely depends upon the extent of area available at the site and the demand regarding parking during the peak hours. Both these aspects are essentially factual aspects, which will require to be verified for a satisfactory determination of the question whether the apprehension expressed by the petitioner is genuine or imaginary, as alleged by the respondents. In the present extra ordinary proceedings before us, it will be difficult for us to answer anyone of the two questions satisfactorily. In our opinion, the proper course is to direct the Director, Local Self Government, Haryana, to look into the matter and to take a final decision as to the correctness of the CWP No. 6649 of 2008 (3) decision to construct the additional booths. Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the Chief Town Planner, Haryana, could also be associated with the process of assessment of the site condition and viability of the project. This position was disputed by counsel for the respondent, according to whom the Chief Town Planner, Haryana, has no role to play in so far as the proposed construction is concerned. Be that as it may, the question whether the Chief Town Planner, Haryana, has any role to play and if so, whether his opinion would make any difference in the matter, is also an aspect that we will leave to the Director, Local Self Government, Haryana, to determine. The Director shall be free to consult the Chief Town Planner or any other expert, consultant or architect in order to take a final decision whether the proposed construction is or is not feasible, technically or otherwise. The petitioner shall be free to file a representation before the Director, Local Self Government, Haryana, pointing out his objections to the proposed construction, within four weeks from today, in which event, the Director shall take a final decision on the subject within eight weeks thereafter, if necessary, after he visits the spot; examines and considers the rival points of view. We make it clear that any decision, the Director, may take pursuant to this order, shall be final and binding upon the parties. Needless to say that the construction of the proposed additional booths shall await the final orders of the Director. No costs. (T.S. THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 13-01-2009 ds