LPA No. 4 of 2008 [1] IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 4 of 2008 Date of Decision: 22.08.2008 Smt. Jaishri Bindal and others ...Appellants versus State of Haryana and others ..Respondents Present : Mr. Pawan Malik, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Sanjeev Kaushik, Addl. A.G. Haryana for respondents No.1 to 3. Mr. Nidesh Gupta, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vikas Behl, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT ***** T.S.Thakur, Chief Justice (Oral) This Letters Patent Appeal arises out of an order dated 5.9.2007 passed by the learned Single Judge of this Court dismissing Civil Writ Petition No. 2844 of 2006 on the ground that the petitioners- appellants herein have an efficacious alternate remedy by way of a civil suit in a competent Civil Court. It is not in our opinion necessary to set out the factual matrix in which the controversy in the writ petition and the present appeal arises for consideration. We say so because after arguing the matter at considerable length learned counsel for the parties agreed that the impugned order of learned Single Judge could be set aside and the matter remanded back for a fresh disposal in accordance with law. Learned counsel for the appellants also made an oral prayer for permission to suitably amend the writ petition so as to urge some additional grounds in the same. In the interest of justice LPA No. 4 of 2008 [2] and for a speedy disposal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, that prayer has not been opposed by learned counsel for the respondents. He urged that amended writ petition could be filed within time frame to be fixed by this Court and the respondents given an opportunity to file a counter affidavit to the same. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the respondents that after dismissal of the writ petition by the learned Single Judge, in terms of the impugned order, respondent no.5 had started construction of the school building and incurred considerable expenditure on the same. He submitted that if the order passed by the learned Single Judge dismissing the writ petition is set aside and the matter remitted back for a fresh disposal in accordance with law, the order passed by the Supreme Court in a Special Leave Petition filed by the petitioner-appellant herein may get revived preventing the respondents from continuing with the construction which has already reached an advance stage. He urged that this Court could permit respondent No.5 to continue with the construction at its own costs and subject to the ultimate outcome of the writ petition. Commissioning of the institution could, however, await till the matter is eventually disposed of by the learned Single Judge. Learned counsel for the petitioners has no objection to the course of action proposed by the respondents being followed. In the circumstances and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, we allow this appeal, set aside the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned Single Judge and remand the matter back to the learned Single Judge for fresh disposal in accordance with law. We further direct that petitioners- appellants herein shall file an amended writ petition within a period of four weeks from today with an LPA No. 4 of 2008 [3] advance copy to counsel opposite who shall file a reply to the same within two weeks. Rejoinder, if any, shall be filed within two weeks from the date, the counter affidavit is filed. The writ petition then be listed before the learned Single Judge for final hearing on 6.11.2008. Pending final disposal of the writ petition, as indicated above, respondent No.5 shall be free to complete the construction of the school building entirely at its own risk and cost but subject to the ultimate outcome of the writ petition. We make it clear that the respondents shall not claim any equity in their favour on the basis of the investments made by them on the project. Commissioning of the school shall, however, remain stayed till such time the writ petition is finally disposed of by the learned Single Judge. In case the learned Single Judge is at any stage of the opinion that early disposal of the writ petition is being delayed by the petitioners, he shall be free to permit the respondents to move an application for vacation of the interim direction restraining commissioning of the school and pass appropriate orders on the same. Since the matter has been pending for some time, we request the learned Single Judge to expedite the hearing and dispose of the same as far as possible within a period of six months from the date of this order. No costs. (T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE (SURYA KANT) 22.08.2008 JUDGE 'ravinder'