Regular Second Appeal No.3636 of 2010 (O & M ) IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: March 29, 2011. Regular Second Appeal No.3636 of 2010 (O & M Munshi Ram ….Appellant Versus Municipal Corporation, Jalandhar through its Commissioner ...Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. C.L. Sharma, Advocate, for the appellant. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. Civil Misc. No.10707-C of 2010. This application, filed for condoning the delay of 5 days in re-filing the appeal, is supported by an affidavit. For the reasons Regular Second Appeal No.3636 of 2010 (O & M ) stated in the application, the same is allowed and delay of 5 days in re- filing the appeal is condoned. The plaintiff-appellant is in second appeal whose suit for mandatory injunction in respect of the property in dispute and for recovery of certain amount as damages from defendant-respondent Municipal Corporation (for short `the Corporation’) has been dismissed by both the Courts below. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and going through the records of the case, I do not see any merit in this appeal. The plaintiff-appellant was permitted to use vacant site measuring about 2’ x 2’ alongside the road purely on temporary basis. The plaintiff encroached upon the municipal area by raising illegal construction, which was causing obstruction to the free flow of traffic. The plaintiff was served notice under Section 246 of the Municipal Corporation Act by the Corporation thereby apprising the plaintiff that he had encroached upon the municipal land and that permission which had earlier been granted to him to use the vacant site of about 2’ x 2’ had been cancelled. However, it was following the adamancy of the plaintiff to comply with the said notice that legal action was taken against the plaintiff and the Corporation demolished the illegal construction. The plaintiff had encroached upon the municipal area for running S.T.D/P.C.O and a Studio without obtaining any permission from the Corporation. In fact, it was the case of plaintiff himself that he had raised a shop at the site in question. On the other hand, the case of the Corporation that the plaintiff had started using the site for running P.C.O and had also set up a studio has remained unchallenged on record. No replication was filed by the plaintiff to this Regular Second Appeal No.3636 of 2010 (O & M ) averment of the Corporation in the written statement. It is well settled that a licencee, like the plaintiff, has no right to seek injunction once the licence stands cancelled. In view of the factual position, discussed above, I do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings of fact recorded by both the Courts below which may give rise to any substantial question of law. Resultantly, this appeal is hereby dismissed being without any merit. Dated: March 29, 2011. (MOHINDER PAL) ak JUDGE