IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.19160 of 2008 Date of decision: 02.02.2010 M/s Shiv Shakti Petroleum ....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr.Amarjit Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Ravi Dutt Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for the respondents. ---- 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 ? ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. The writ petition challenges the order passed by the Chairman of the Tribunal constituted under the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act of 1963 (hereinafter called 'the Act'). The petitioner is a retailer of a petrol outlet and he had been served with a notice by the competent authority stating that the place where the petrol pump had been located had been notified as a controlled area under the Act and he had been carrying on his business activity without securing sanction for an appropriate change of land user for a commercial activity. It is an admitted fact that the notification under the Act, had been made on 07.10.2004. Civil Writ Petition No.19160 of 2008 - 2 - 2. The contention in response to the notice by the competent authority was that he had applied for a 'No Objection Certificate' on 07.04.2003 at the time when the place had not been notified under the Act. The Town Planner after an inspection recommended the issuance of a 'No Objection Certificate' and ultimately the District Magistrate had granted permission for installation of the petrol outlet on 09.12.2004. The order granting permission itself was attached with the conditions namely, (i) that the petitioner should obtain the building plans from the competent authority; (ii) that the 'No Objection Certificate' would not give any immunity against any other rules or regulations; and (iii) any breach of the condition could be construed as resulting in a prospect of cancellation of the NOC. The issue is whether the Magistrate who granted a NOC was competent to grant the NOC, in view of the notification under the Act and further whether the petitioner had committed any violation of any of the local laws that would require the cancellation of the NOC. 3. Without adverting to the merits of the contentions, the Tribunal while disposing of the appeal filed by the petitioner, had observed that an order dated 20.02.2006 had been challenged in an appeal but no such order was produced before the Court. The learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that the reference to the date 20.02.2006 was a mistake and the order that he was appealing against and what was before the Tribunal, was the order issued by the competent authority on 25.01.2006, under Section 12(2) of the Act. The order of the Tribunal states that the order issued by the competent authority was Civil Writ Petition No.19160 of 2008 - 3 - dated 25.01.2007 and that it had not been challenged and that further no appeal would lie against a notice under the Act. The petitioner has filed into Court Annexure P-8/A that refers to the order under Section 12(2) as having been passed only on 25.01.2006. The respondents have annexed a copy of the order under R-6 which is purported to have been issued on 25.01.2007. There seems to be some confusion about the date of the order which was appealed against, but there is no confusion about the content of the order which is challenged in the appeal before the Tribunal. 4. Since the matter has been disposed of by the Chairman, Tribunal without adverting to the merits of the controversy involved, I set aside the order dated 05.09.2008 and direct that the Tribunal undertakes an adjudication of the validity of the order issued under Section 12(2) of the Act, be it 25.01.2006 or 25.01.2007 and dispose of the appeal on merits. There has been already an order directing rejection of the status quo and it shall continue and will abide by the ultimate decision that is taken by the Tribunal. 5. The writ petition is disposed of on the above terms. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 02.02.2010 sanjeev