CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10823 OF 2010 :{ 1 }: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH DATE OF DECISION: JANUARY 21 ,2011 Ram Narian and another .....Petitioners VERSUS State of Haryana and others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? PRESENT: Mr. P. K. Ganga, Advocate, for the petitioners. Ms. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana, for the State. Mr. Subhash Ahuja,k Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioners seek quashing of the notice dated 7.5.2010, whereby he has been asked to close the gate of their shop No.57, Scheme No.17, B Block within a period of three days. As per the petitioners, Improvement Trust had constructed many shops and the tenants had taken these shops on rent. Many shopkeepers are having corner shops with opening on two sides doors/gates. The CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10823 OF 2010 :{ 2 }: petitioners had taken Shop No.57 on rent and started their business. As per the petitioners, they suddenly received a notice on 29.4.2010, directing them to close the second door within 7 days, failing which action was to be taken against them. Alleging that the respondents are adopting the policy of pick and choose, they have filed this petition against this notice. While issuing notice, operation of the impugned order was stayed. Respondents have filed reply and would show that the petitioners have not approached the Court with clean hands. Rather, the allegation of abuse of process of this Court is made against the petitioners. It is stated that in response to impugned show cause notice, the petitioners had removed the violation by raising half brick wall in front of the shutter of their illegal and unauthorised gate and had informed the Trust accordingly on 9.5.2010. Copy of this letter is annexed with the reply as Annexure R2/1. The shop was physically inspected by the staff and the violation was found to have been removed. Thereafter, the petitioners have filed this writ petition by withholding this fact and obtained the interim order on 2.6.2010. It is, thus, seen that the petitioners have withheld information from this Court and had obtained interim order in their favour. Once the petitioners had removed the violation pursuant to the show cause notice, they were fairly required to disclose the same before this Court, if they intended to challenge the notice. This information has not been fully disclosed. For this reason alone, the petitioners would not deserve any consideration in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Otherwise also, no justifiable reason or cause is made CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO.10823 OF 2010 :{ 3 }: out for interference in this case as the petitioners can not be permitted to continue with the violation, which is required to be removed under law. There is, thus, no merit in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. January 21,2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) khurmi JUDGE