IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3020 of 2008. Date of Decision: 11th May, 2009. Amrik Singh Bhinder ....Petitioner through Mr. A.K.Khunger, Advocate Versus State of Haryana & Ors. .Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner seeks quashing of the letter dated 28.2.2007 [Annexure P-6] whereby the violations committed under Section 7 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 [for short 'the 1975 Act'] have been decided to be compounded but he has been asked to deposit the composition fee of Rs.52,505/- for an area measuring 2625.22 square yards. Undisputedly, the petitioner moved the afore-stated application to compound the offence under the Act so that he could avoid his trial in case FIR No. 189 dated 15.8.1987 registered under Section 10 of the 1975 Act at Police Station, Shahabad. While the respondents did not take any decision on the said application for compounding of the offence, the petitioner meanwhile earned acquittal from the learned Judicial Magistrate Ist Class, Kurukshetra vide judgment dated 16.1.2007 [Annexure P-5]. The petitioner's grievance is that since he has already faced trial and earned acquittal, the compounding of offence by the respondents at a belated stage on payment of Rs.52,505/- as composition fee, is an exercise in futility and he can not be made liable to pay the said fee. The respondents have filed their counter-affidavit. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at some length and records perused. There can indeed be no doubt that if a person contravenes the provisions of the Act or the Rules made thereunder, he can be punished with imprisonment which may extend up to three years besides fine as provided under Section 10[1] of the 1975. Act. The petitioner was also prosecuted under the said provision but has been acquitted by the learned trial Court by giving him the benefit of doubt. That being so, the petitioner's request made to the respondent authorities to compound the offence by imposing composition fee on him, became infructuous as the respondents took a decision to that effect only after the trial Court had acquitted him. The impugned order, therefore, does not fall within the parameters of Section 10[1] read with Section 13 of the 1975 Act. No doubt the respondents can also take action against the petitioner under Section 10[2] of the Act without prejudice to the provisions of sub-Section [1] of Section 10, but the penal action permitted to be taken under that provision does not include imposition of the composition fee as Section 10[2] of the 1975 Act contemplates different types of penal action, i.e., other than the recovery of composition fee. For the reasons afore-stated, the writ petition is allowed and the impugned order dated 28.2.2007 [Annexure P-6] is set aside. However, it shall not preclude the respondents from taking action against the petitioner in accordance with the provisions of Section 10[2] of the 1975 Act, if so advised. Dasti. May 11, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE