IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19138 of 2011 Date of Decision: October 13, 2011 Pankaj Chandgothia …Petitioner Versus Union of India and others …Respondents CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: CORAM: HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV RAJIV RAJIV RAJIV NARAIN RAINA NARAIN RAINA NARAIN RAINA NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Pankaj Chandgothia, Petitioner-in-Person. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ M.M. KUMAR, ACJ 1. The instant petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution seeks a direction to the State of Punjab and its agency Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA), not to re- name the Mullanpur Local Planning Area or any part thereof as ‘New Chandigarh’ or ‘Chandigarh with or without any prefix or suffix thereto’. A further direction has also been sought to the respondents Union of India and Chandigarh Administration to take steps to safeguard the value, rights and interests enshrined in the name of Chandigarh as an entity referring to a constitutionally sanctioned land area comprised in the territory of India. 2. The petitioner claims himself the national convener of an organisation known as ‘Harmonious Omni-directional Public Endeavour (HOPE). This organisation is aimed at creating awareness about social issues. There is an endeavour made by the CWP No. 19138 of 2011 2 State of Punjab-respondent No. 4 along with GMADA-respondent No. 5 to develop the area comprised in the nearby Urban Estate, Mullanpur by giving it the name of ‘New Chandigarh’. The petitioner is agitating against the use of name of Chandigarh by respondent Nos. 4 to 7. 3. We have heard the petitioner-in-person and find that there is no such prohibition for the use of name of ‘Chandigarh’ with another name like ‘New Chandigarh’. On our repeated asking the petitioner has not been able to point out any illegality in such a course adopted by respondent Nos. 4 to 7. It is well known that when the area start expanding then the word ‘New’ is always pre- fixed or suffixed with the new developed area, for example ‘Delhi’ and ‘New Delhi’ or ‘Bombay’ and ‘Greater Bombay’. Therefore, we do not find any merit in the contention raised by the petitioner for restraining the respondents from using the name as ‘New Chandigarh’. Accordingly, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) (M.M. KUMAR) Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice Acting Chief Justice (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) October October October October 13, 201 , 201 , 201 , 2011 Judge Judge Judge Judge PKapoor