COCP No. 501 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 501 of 2010 Date of decision:- 30.8.2010 Mohinder Singh ......petitioner vs. Vinay Bablani, Municipal Commissioner, Jalandhar & ors ......respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Vishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amit Aggarwal, Advocate for the respondents. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) Writ petition filed by the petitioner was allowed by this Court on 6.8.2009, wherein Clause 4 of the agreement was set aside subject to right of the petitioner under Sections 122 and 123 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976. Learned counsel for the petitioner claims that in terms of Section 123 of the Act, the petitioner has a right to display advertisements in terms of the Municipal Corporation (Control of Advertisement) Bye-laws, 2003. On 17.8.2010, learned counsel for respondent has stated that the Corporation has not finalized any bye-laws and in fact, the Corporation has been granted six months' time to frame bye-laws in an order passed by the Court in CWP No. 473 of 2010. The case was adjourned to enable learned counsel for the petitioner to file an affidavit to the effect that bye-laws have been framed by the Municipal Corporation in accordance with the statutory provisions. Today, learned counsel for the petitioner has referred to certain documents wherein the Municipal Corporation has made reference to the bye-laws COCP No. 501 of 2010 -2- of 2003 to contend that in fact the Municipal Corporation has framed bye-laws in the year 2003. However, he could not point out that such bye-laws have been notified after complying with the provisions of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976 in reference of framing of bye-laws. Section 123 of the Act provides for the procedure for display of the advertisement in terms of the permission to be granted by the Commissioner in accordance with the bye-laws framed under the Act. Since, it cannot be pointed out that the bye-laws have been framed, therefore, till such time bye-laws are framed, it cannot be said that the petitioner has a right to display the advertisement. It may further be stated that Clause 4 of the agreement stands deleted from the agreement. Therefore, it cannot be said that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. In view of the said fact, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 30.8.2010 preeti