PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH. *** CWP No. 11277 of 2008 Date of Decision: July, 13, 2009. *** Gaganjit Singh and ors. Vs. State of Punjab and others. *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CJ AND HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. *** Present: Shri Naresh Ghai, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri Parminder Singh, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. Shri R.P.Khosla, Addl: A.G.Punjab, for respondents No. 1 and 4. Shri Arun Jain, Sr.Advocate, with Shri Vijay Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.5. *** T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral) This petition purports to have been filed in Public Interest. The grievance of the petitioner is directed against a commercial building being constructed by respondent No.5 at the Income Tax / Cantonment Road, Patiala. The petitioner's case appears to be that the said building has been allowed to be constructed by the Municipal Corporation without sanction of proper building plans and in violations of the building norms and the by- laws on the subject, which calls for intervention of this court in public interest. The respondents have disputed the averments made in the writ petition and pointed out that the road in question having been declared commercial in the year 1999 by the state government, there is nothing wrong with the construction of the building in question or the sanction of the CWP No. 11277 of 2008 -2- building plans in favour of respondent No.5. It is also the case of the respondents that certain violations were no doubt reported against respondent No.5 but the said violations were compoundable and had been compounded on payment of a sum of R.4,50,811/- by the Building Sub Committee of the Corporation. Reliance in support of that submission has been placed upon a document marked Annexure R2/5 to the counter affidavit which is said to be an order of composition. When the matter came up before us on July 06, 2009 and was partly heard, we were of the opinion that the order referred to by the respondents as the order of compounding of the violations committed by respondent No.5, did not satisfy the requirements of an order of composition, We had, therefore, directed the personal appearance of the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala with the relevant record to explain whether the violations have been taken note of and compounded, and if so, the order by which such composition had taken place. The Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala is today present in person. An attempt was made by Mr. Khosla appearing on his behalf, to construe the order marked Annexure R2/5 as a composition order no matter even according to him, the order was not happily worded nor was the Building Sub Committee authorized to pass the same. Mr. Khosla submitted that In order to cut short any further delay in the consideration and disposal of the matter and also with a view to expediting the conclusion of the issues raised by the petitioner, the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala who was admittedly competent in terms of Section 394-B of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 shall have no difficulty in examining the report regarding the violations committed by respondent No.5 and passing a specific order on the subject. The Commissioner, who is present in person also submitted that other issues which the petitioner wishes to raise, namely, whether the road is a commercial road and whether the CWP No. 11277 of 2008 -3- sanction of plans for commercial buildings was permissible and if so, whether the violations committed by respondent No.5 are compoundable could also be examined by him afresh. In that view and having regard to the fact that the purported order of composition does not satisfy the requirements of a valid order, we have no difficulty in directing reconsideration of the matter by the Commissioner of the Municipal Corporation, Patiala. We accordingly dispose of this petition with the direction that the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala shall examine the following issues and pass an appropriate speaking order on the subject under intimation to the petitioner as also respondent No.5 expeditiously but not later than six weeks from today. i) Whether the Income Tax /Cantonment Road on which the construction in question has been raised has been declared as a commercial road? ii) Whether there was any impropriety or illegality in the sanction of building plans for the building proposed to be constructed by respondent No.5 on the said road? iii)Whether the construction actually raised by respondent No.5 is in violation of the sanctioned plans or any bye-laws of the Corporation? If so, whether the said violations or any one of them is non-compoundable in nature? Depending on the view which the commissioner may take, he shall pass an appropriate speaking order in accordance with law. The petitioner shall be free to submit any representation to the Commissioner within 10 days from today and appear before the Commissioner for personal hearing in support of the same on July 17, 2009 at 10 AM. Needless to say that respondent No.5 shall also similarly be free to appear before the Commissioner and seek composition of the violations of the structures in question, if the same are otherwise compoundable. No order as to costs. CWP No. 11277 of 2008 -4- A copy of the order be given dasti to the counsel for the petitioner under the signatures of Court Master of the Bench. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice July 13, 2009 (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Malik Judge