LPA No. 2339 of 2011 -1- In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh LPA No. 2339 of 2011 (O&M) Date of decision: 23.12.2011 State of Punjab & another ....... Petitioners Versus Ajay Kumar and others ........ Respondents Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice M.M. Kumar Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rajiv Narain Raina **** Present : Mr. Amol Rattan, Addl. A.G., Punjab for the appellants. Mr. R.S. Rai, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Harsimran Singh Sethi, Advocate and Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate for the intervener. **** 1. To be referred to the reporters or not ? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest? M.M. Kumar, J. 1. The instant by the State of Punjab Letter Patents Appeal under Clause X of the Letter Patent is directed against the interlocutory order dated 19.10.2011 passed by the learned Single Judge setting aside the notification dated 26.07.2011 declaring the Municipal Council, Pathankot as Municipal Corporation without including any Sub-urban or Urban area as was recommended by the Deputy Commissioner. The appellant-State has asked for a report from the Deputy Commissioner by sending a communication on 11.7.2011, which was received by the Municipal Council on 21.7.2011. The next two days were Saturday and Sunday (i.e. 23.7.2011 and 24.7.2011). The report was sent to appellant- LPA No. 2339 of 2011 -2- State a day before i.e. 25.07.2011. The report has recommended inclusion of 'adjoining sub-urban' as well as 'urban areas' in the proposed declaration of urban area and that of the Municipal Corporation. However, the same was not included. The report was not in fact considered seriously. The impugned order dated 19.10.2011 is followed by subsequent order of admission with confirmation of interim order which is not challenged. Thereafter vide order dated 2.11.2011, it has been directed the matter be listed for regular hearing preferably on 28.11.2011. Accordingly, the writ petition was listed for hearing, although, it is yet to be heard 2. It has been pointed out by the counsel for the intervener that the writ petition declaring the Municipal area of Moga as Municipal Corporation and Phagwara were also admitted being CWP No. 19429 of 2011 and CWP No. 14024 of 2011 respectively. Those orders have also not been challenged. We also find that there are arguable issues and interim order cannot be interfered with. 3. Once the writ petition is already listed and there are prima facie reasons recorded in the order dated 19.9.2011 and the admission order is not under challenge, we deem it appropriate to relegate the appellant-State to address arguments before the learned Single Judge. The appellant- State may request the Bench for an early actual date. No case is made out for vacation of stay order in the present case. 4. The appeal is accordingly dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 23.12.2011 'sp'