C.R. No. 7536 of 2009 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.R. No. 7536 of 2009 Date of Decision: December 18, 2009 Naveen Gupta …..Petitioner Vs. Municipal Council and others …..Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI. -.- Present:- Mr. O.P. Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner. -.- M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) Plaintiff claims that he had a valid registration as per bye-laws 62 of Haryana Municipal Building Bye-laws, 1982 and he held a licence to work as an Architect which was valid from March 31, 2007 till March 31, 2008. Aggrieved by the cancellation of said licence vide order dated August 31, 2007, he had field a suit for declaration and injunction on March 8, 2008. Alongwith the plaint, the plaintiff- petitioner filed an application for interim relief praying that the operation of the order cancelling his C.R. No. 7536 of 2009 [2] licence should remain stayed during the pendency of the suit. The Courts below have dismissed his application. A perusal of the order of the lower Appellate Court indicates that one of the reasons for dismissing the application for interim injunction is that the licence was operative from March 31, 2007 till March 31, 2008, the same having not been renewed, the interim injunction, if granted to the plaintiff would tentamount to compelling the defendant- respondents to keep the expired license alive. Counsel for the petitioner has contended that the order of cancellation of licence is illegal and without sanction of law as it is based upon an anonymous complaint; there being no evidence against the plaintiff- petitioner; the Executive Officer has got no authority to cancel the licence; authority, if any, vests in Municipal Council; the cancellation having been ordered without a legal competence by an authority, the order of cancellation prima facie is not sustainable. After hearing counsel for the plaintiff- petitioner, I am of the opinion that in view of the cancelled licence being operative till March 31, 2008, it will not be prudent to grant any interim injunction to the plaintiff- petitioner. The balance of convenience also does not lie in favour of the plaintiff. Counsel has not been able to satisfy this Court that irreparable loss will be suffered by the plaintiff- appellant except that a damage of his reputation on the basis of an anonymous complaint. It has been claimed that the fundamental right of carrying on profession has been prima facie violated. C.R. No. 7536 of 2009 [3] I do not find any ground to interfere in the orders passed by the Courts below. However, since the profession of the plaintiff- appellant is at stake, it is ordered that the trial Court will expeditiously dispose of the trial preferably within a period of six months after the receipt of a certified copy of the order as it is apparent that the adjudication of the matter depends upon the documentary evidence only. Dismissed. Copy of the order be communicated to the trial Court. December 18, 2009 (M.M.S.BEDI) sanjay JUDGE