C.W.P. No.534 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 18.09.2008 Nu-Cork Products (P) Ltd. and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Mr.Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate with Mr.J.S.Sidhu, Advocate, Mr.Adarsh Jain, Mr.Rajesh Punj, Mr.J.S.Wasu, Mr.Shailenra Jain, Mr.N.D.Achint, Advocates for the petitioners. Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr.A.K.Walia, Manish Bansal and Raghujeet Singh Madan, Advocates, for HUDA. Mr.Aman Chaudhary, Advocate, for respondent No.5. Mr.Rohit Khanna, Advocate, Mr.R.C.Chugh, Advocate, Mr.O.S.Batalvi, Advocate, Mr.Sumeet Goel, Advocate, for respondents. --- UMA NATH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for parties. This judgment shall also dispose of connected Civil Writ Petition Nos.14601 of 2007, 14614 of 2007, 14615 of 2007, 14620 of 2007, 14623 of 2007, 1159 of 2008, 1160 of 2008, 1161 of 2008, 6230 of 2008, 7112 of 2008, 8153 of 2008, 9807 of 2008, 12969 of 2008, 13375 of 2008, 13279 of 2008, 12979 of 2008, 12971 of 2008, 12970 of 2008, 16010 of 2008, 16016 of 2008, and 4666 of 2008, as this bunch of writ petitions impugns common questions of law with the same notification C.W.P. No.534 of 2008 2 (Annexure P-9) dated 9.1.1985, and somewhat similar facts. This bunch of writ petitions impugns Annexures P-3 & P-4 relating to V2 (a) road which is to go from Dwarka Residential Complex of Delhi to Palam Vihar of Gurgaon. According to learned senior counsel for petitioners, the alignment of road shown in draft master plan, was different from the one as drawn in final plan. Thus the alignment of road has been arbitrarily changed to the disadvantage of running industrial units of petitioners. Learned senior counsel further submitted that National Capital Region Planning Board which is the apex body to consider plannings in National Capital Region area, was also not consulted. This is also a submission of learned senior counsel that no adequate opportunity was given to petitioners to file objections and of hearing before changing the alignment of the road. Learned senior counsel for petitioners also states that for the present, petitioners would be satisfied if a liberty is granted to submit objections with directions to authorities to consider and dispose of such objections within a time frame after granting an opportunity of hearing to them. On the other hand, learned counsel for the National Capital Region, referred to para 20 of his counter affidavit filed in Civil Writ Petition No.8055 of 2008. The said paragraph, on reproduction, reads as: “20. That the contents of para No.20 are wrong and thus denied. It is submitted here that V2 a) road are not shown in the Regional Plan (RP) as it is a policy document prepared at the macro level where only major roads are shown like express ways, national highways, state highways and only a few district roads as in indicated in the map 6.3 of RP 2021. A copy of the map 6.3 of RP 2021 is being C.W.P. No.534 of 2008 3 appended as Annexure R-1. Suffice it to submit that the State Government is to prepare the development plan within the overall frame work of the Regional Plan and may propose roads in the development plan which it may deem necessary. The Board did not raise any objections to the new road link proposed between Dwarka Residential Complex of Delhi to Palam Vihar of Gurgaon as this will open up new areas of development between Delhi and Haryana.” However, it appears from the above averments that though a development plan can be prepared by the State, but it should be made only within an overall frame- work of the Regional Plan. Though the Board has shown that it has no objection to V2 (a) being built up, but we notice that there was no active participation on the part of Board in drawing the final development plan. Mr.Girish Agnihori, learned Senior counsel appearing for respondent No.2 does not have any serious objection to proposal of learned senior counsel Shri Aggarwal, provided the statute permits it. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of all these writ petitions with liberty to petitioners to file their objections within 15 days from the date of receiving a copy of this order, which shall be considered by authorities concerned after giving opportunity of hearing to the parties, within 15 days thereafter. Authorities shall pass orders on merits after taking into consideration National Capital Region Planning Act, 1985 and Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restrictions of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. In case the petitioners are able to convince the authorities with their objections and submissions, we expect from the C.W.P. No.534 of 2008 4 authorities to act fairly and pass appropriate order by withdrawing the notifications. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioners to re- agitate the impugned notifications before this Court in case their claims are not satisfactorily considered by the authorities. Till the objections of the petitioners are not decided, the alignment of road in question in the final development plan would not be given effect. All these writ petitions are disposed of accordingly. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 18-09-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO