Civil Writ Petition No. 7058 of 2010 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH --- Civil Writ Petition No. 7058 of 2010 Date of decision: May 5, 2010 Baldev Sahai --- Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others --- Respondents ---- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL ---- Present: Ms. Promila Nain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Satish Bhanot, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent Nos. 1 and 2. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 3 to 5. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, for quashing the action of the Municipal Corporation, Ludhiana whereby they had put a red cross mark on the wall of the house of the petitioner on 6.4.2010 thereby giving an indication that the same was to be demolished, without issuing any notice or affording an opportunity of hearing to him, and a writ of mandamus to the respondents, directing them not to exercise their powers arbitrarily and discriminatory but to carry out re-demarcation of Civil Writ Petition No. 7058 of 2010 -2- the area in question as per the scheme of the respondent-Corporation without biased approach. Learned counsel for the petitioner has, inter alia, contended that the respondent-Corporation has put a cross mark in red on the wall of the house of the petitioner on 6.4.2010, thereby giving an indication that the same was to be demolished, without issuing any notice or opportunity of hearing to him. The counsel submits that the petitioner had constructed his house within his limits and no violation or encroachment has ever been made by him. At the time of issuing notice of motion on 21.4.2010 for today, it was directed that status quo shall be maintained by the parties till today. Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, learned counsel for respondent Nos.3 to 5, on instructions from Mr. K.S. Kahlon, the Legal Advisor of the respondent-Corporation, present in Court, submits that the respondent- Corporation shall not take any action for demolition of the alleged encroachment made by the petitioner without affording an opportunity of hearing to him. The counsel further states that the petitioner may submit a detailed and comprehensive representation taking all the grounds mentioned in this writ petition and also any additional ground to the Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, within two weeks from today, and in case, it is done, decision shall be taken thereon by the respondent- Corporation, within four weeks of the date of receipt thereof after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. Mr. Aggarwal further states that in case any order adverse to the interests of the petitioner is passed in the matter, the same shall be intimated to the petitioner forthwith and also kept in abeyance for next four weeks from the date of communication to the petitioner to enable him to take recourse to the remedies available to him in law. Civil Writ Petition No. 7058 of 2010 -3- In view of the above, the learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition may be disposed of in terms of the statement made by the learned counsel for the respondents. The writ petition is disposed of accordingly. May 5, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) *RKMALIK*/gbs JUDGE