Letters Patent Appeal No. 866 of 2011 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Letters Patent Appeal No. 866 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:18th May, 2011 M/s Personnel Management Association(Regd.), 63, Neelam Bata Road through its President Sh. Ashok Wadhwa S/o Late Sh. Ram Narain .......Appellant Versus The State of Haryana and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR GARG Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Narender Hooda, Sr. Additional Advocate General, Haryana for the respondent State. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes/No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?Yes/No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Yes/No Jasbir Singh, J.(Oral) This appeal has been filed against an order dated 10.05.2011 passed by this Court in CWP No. 9790 of 2008 which reads thus:- “Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S.Saini, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Learned counsel for petitioner prays for time. Letters Patent Appeal No. 866 of 2011 2 Order dated 29.5.2008 ordering stay of dispossession is hereby vacated. It is however made clear that in case the petitioner wants to make offer for purchase of plot at current market rate, petitioner would be at liberty to join proceedings and make offer. Adjourned to 13.9.2011. Let copy of the order be given under signatures of Special Secretary of the Branch. May 10, 2011 Sd/- (Ajai Lamba) Judge” At the time of argument, it has been brought to our notice that vide order dated 1.04.2011, the learned Single Judge asked the counsel for the petitioner to get instructions as to whether the petitioner is ready to purchase the land as per offer made by the Municipal Corporation. The order reads thus:- “The order under challenge in this petition have been passed under the Haryana Public Premises Act. The petitioner has been ordered to be ejected. A prayer has been made on behalf of the petitioner that the petitioner is ready and willing to purchase the property in terms of policy placed on record as Annexure P-12 and P-15. Learned counsel for the respondent-Municipal Corporation, Faridabad contends that Annexure P-12 would be applicable only to Municipal Committees. Be that Letters Patent Appeal No. 866 of 2011 3 as it may, so as to determine the price of land, the authorities have to determine the price in reference to provisions of Section 164 (c) of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994. The Corporation is ready and willing to auction the land which would indicate the market value of the land and petitioner would be at liberty to purchase at that value. Learned counsel for the petitioner prays for time to take instructions. Adjourned to 04.04.2011. Last opportunity. “ On 4.04.2011, none appeared on behalf of the petitioners and the following order was passed:- “None for the petitioner(s). Mr. B.S.Saini, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Shri Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, counsel for the petitioner, was to take instructions in the context of contents of order dated 1.4.2011. None, however, has put in appearance on behalf of the petitioner. Adjourned to 18.04.2011. Last opportunity.” An order passed on 18.04.2011 reads as under:- “Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. S.S.Nara, Sr. DAG, Haryana. Mr. Narender Hooda, Advocate for respondent No. 2. Letters Patent Appeal No. 866 of 2011 4 Learned counsel for the petitioner seeks a short adjournment. Adjourned to 10.05.2011.” Vide order dated 10.05.2011, the stay was vacated. It appears that when that order was passed, the learned Single Judge might have got an impression that the petitioner is trying to delay the disposal of the matter. Learned counsel for the appellant told us that in terms of the order passed by the learned Single Judge on 1.04.2011 he has got instructions from the petitioner and by moving an application will disclose the entire position before the learned Single Judge. Under the circumstances, we dispose of this appeal with liberty to the appellant to move an appropriate application for recalling of order dated 10.05.2011 by disclosing a fact whether the appellant is ready to accept the offer made by the Municipal Corporation on 1.04.2011 or not. Copy of this order be given to the counsel for the parties under the signatures of the Court Secretary of this Court. [JASBIR SINGH] JUDGE [RAKESH KUMAR GARG] JUDGE 18th May, 2011 Shivani Kaushik