C.W.P. No.1158 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 19.09.2008 M/s Krishna Resins & Pigments Pvt. Ltd. .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE DAYA CHAUDHARY. Present : Mr.J.S.Wasu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Ms.Binayjeet Sheoran, Advocate, for respondent No.3. --- UMA NATH SINGH, J. Heard learned counsel for parties. This writ petition impugns Annexures P-5 & P-6 relating to V2 (a) road which is to go from Dwarka Residential Complex of Delhi to Palam Vihar of Gurgaon. According to learned counsel for petitioner, 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 unit of petitioner. Learned 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 counsel for petitioner that no adequate opportunity was given to the petitioner to file objection and of hearing before changing the alignment of the road. Learned counsel for petitioner also states that for the present, petitioner would be satisfied if a liberty is granted to submit objections with directions to C.W.P. No.1158 of 2008 2 authorities to consider and dispose of such objections within a time frame after granting an opportunity of hearing to him. 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 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 C.W.P. No.1158 of 2008 3 counsel for petitioner, provided the statute permits it. In view of the aforesaid, we dispose of this writ petition with liberty to petitioner to file his objection within 15 days from the date of receiving a copy of this order, which shall be considered by authority concerned after giving opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, within 15 days thereafter. Authority shall pass order 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 petitioner is able to convince the authority with his objections and submissions, we expect from the authority to act fairly and pass appropriate order by withdrawing the notifications. Needless to say that it would be open to the petitioner to re- agitate the impugned notifications before this Court in case his claims is not satisfactorily considered by the authority. Till the objections of the petitioner are not decided, the alignment of road in question in the final development plan would not be given effect. This writ petition is disposed of accordingly. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 19-09-2008 (DAYA CHAUDHARY) *mohinder JUDGE Whether this judgment be referred to Reporter or not? YES/NO