IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 19205 of 2008. Date of Decision: 10.11.2008. Harbhajan Singh & another ....Petitioners Versus State of Punjab & others ....Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NAWAB SINGH Present : Ms. Rupinder Kaur, Advocate, for the petitioners. 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 ? HEMANT GUPTA. J. Challenge in the present writ petition is to the order passed by the Collector in petition under Section 5 and 7 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction & Rent Recovery) Act, 1973 (for short the 'Act') dated March 21, 2003 (Annexure P-10) and order in appeal dated March 18, 2008 (Annexure P-11) passed by the Commissioner, Amritsar. The respondent-Corporation has invoked the Competent Authority under the Act on the ground that present petitioners have got two shops allotted in their favour. One in the name of firm M/s Harbhajan Singh, Jagmohan Singh and second in the name of Jagmohan Singh, individually. Although, one shop was to be allotted in pursuance of the Scheme of Allotment of Beautification of Area around Golden Temple Complex. Earlier, petitioners invoked the jurisdiction of the civil Court challenging the action of the Municipal Corporation in interfering into the possession CWP No. 19205 of 2008. (2) of the petitioners in respect of plot No. 57 situated in Shaheed Bhagat Singh Market, Amritsar. The said suit was dismissed by the learned trial Court on December 22, 1998 but in appeal, learned Additional District Judge held vide judgment dated December 8, 1999 that present petitioners mis-represented. The allotment has been cancelled correctly as per law. But since the petitioners were found in possession, it was ordered that they can be dispossessed only in due course of law. It was thereafter, the Municipal Corporation sought eviction proceedings under the Act which has been allowed by the authorities under the Act. Learned counsel for the petitioners has vehemently argued that the authority under the Act was required to frame issues before an order of eviction could be passed. Reliance in this regard has been place on judgment of Single Bench in Sarjiwan Tiwari and others Versus Punjab State Electricity Board & another (1998-1) PLR 313. It is also contended that the allotment was rightly made in favour of the petitioners which could not have been cancelled by the Municipal corporation. In the judgment in Sarjiwan Tiwari's case (supra), it has been held that the scheme of the Act indicates with definite clarity that proceedings under this Act are intended to be summary proceedings and the authority concerned has to adopt its procedure in consonance with the provisions of the Act and the Rules framed thereunder. This procedure in fact, spells out all that is required to be done is to be in consonance with the principles of natural justice. Once the principles of natural justice and basic rule of law are CWP No. 19205 of 2008. (3) satisfied, the Court would be reluctant to introduce unnecessary stages of procedural law into summary proceedings. In view of the said decision, it can not be said that issues are required to be framed in proceedings under the Act as a matter of course. Whether issues are required to be framed or not would depend upon the nature of the controversy between the parties. In the present case, the controversy regarding cancellation of allotment stood concluded by the judgment of civil Court. Once, the cancellation has been upheld by the civil Court, the same issues can not be permitted to be raised before the Court of limited jurisdiction. The argument that the issue of cancellation can be examined by this Court is meaningless as the Civil Court has examined the legality of the issue of cancellation, the same can not be permitted to be raised by the petitioners again. Consequently, we do not find any merit in the writ petition and the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE (NAWAB SINGH) JUDGE 10.11.2008. SN