CWP No.4529 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. Civil Writ Petition No.4529 of 2010 Date of decision: 7.4.2010 Satpal Singh and others ...Petitioners Versus Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJAN GUPTA Present: Mr. H.S. Saini, Advocate, for the petitioners. Rajan Gupta, J. (oral) The petitioners have sought a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 6th December, 2007 (Annexure P-5), passed by respondent No.3 and order dated 14th March, 2007 (Annexure P-3), passed by respondent No.2. Brief factual background of the case is that the petitioners submitted a site-plan for raising construction on a plot stated to be owned by the petitioners in Ward No.13, Mohalla Jarlkhellan, Bassi Pathana, District Fatehgarh Sahib. The petitioners claim that they submitted the site plan vide receipt, Annexure P-1 dated 2nd May, 2006. However, the same was not sanctioned, due to which a legal notice had to be issued on 30th September, 2006. The site-plan was, however, rejected vide order, Annexure P-3, passed by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana. The petitioner preferred appeal against the said order and raised various pleas before the appellate CWP No.4529 of 2010 2 authority (Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib). The Deputy Commissioner directed the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana to take action as per rules for sanctioning of the site plan. The petitioners were directed to appear before the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana. Aggrieved by order dated 6th December, 2007, the present writ petition has been preferred by the petitioners claiming therein that vide order, Annexure P-5, the appeal preferred by the petitioners was dismissed. The petitioners have, thus, sought quashing of order, Annexure P-5. Learned counsel for the petitioners has argued that once the site-plan was submitted and no action was taken thereon, the same should deemed to have been sanctioned under Section 193 (4) of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911. According to learned counsel, the impugned orders are, thus, liable to be quashed. I have heard learned counsel for the petitioners and perused the documents annexed with the petition. A perusal of order, Annexure P-3 shows that site-plan, submitted by the petitioners, was rejected by the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bassi Pathania by a single line order on 14th March, 2007. This order was, however, challenged by the petitioners by filing an appeal before the Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib. The Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib accepted the pleas raised by the petitioners and remitted the case to the Executive Officer directing him CWP No.4529 of 2010 3 to act in accordance with rules for sanction of the site plan. The operative part of the order dated 6th December, 2007, passed by the Deputy Commissioner reads thus:- “After hearing the counsel for both the parties and perusal of the record I came to the conclusion that the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana through letter No.486 dated 12.5.2006 written to the applicant, asked to remove the serious objections for sanctioning of site plan. The appellants did not remove the same, therefore, the site plan can not be treated as sanctioned. But Executive Officer, Municipal Council Bassi Pathana exceeded its jurisdiction in passing the order No.175 dated 14.3.2007, which has been passed after a lapse of about 10 months from the date of submission of site plan because the site plan of the appellants has been rejected against the provision of law after the expiry of 60 days. Therefore, the Executive Officer, Municipal Council Bassi Pathana is directed to take action as per rules on submission of the application of the appellants for sanctioning of site plan when presented. He will act in accordance with rules for sanctioning the site plan. The appellants may appear in the office of the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Bassi Pathana. Orders pronounced. File be consigned to the record room after due compliance.” In view of the aforesaid order, it is inexplicable as to how the petitioners submit that appeal preferred by them was dismissed. A perusal of the aforesaid order shows that the appellate authority had accepted the appeal and remitted the case to the Executive Officer directing him to act in accordance with rules for sanction of the site plan. Learned counsel for the petitioners has very fairly stated before CWP No.4529 of 2010 4 the court that the petitioners failed to appear before the Executive Officer pursuant to order passed by the Deputy Commissioner. Under the circumstances, no ground for interference in the writ jurisdiction of this court is made out, as it appears that the appeal preferred by the petitioners against the impugned order, Annexure P-3, rejecting the site plan, was in fact allowed. This apart, the present writ petition has been preferred after a lapse of more than two years since the order, Annexure P-5, was passed by Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib. The petition is devoid of merit. The same is hereby dismissed. (RAJAN GUPTA) JUDGE 7.4.2010 'rajpal' To be referred to the Reporters or not: Yes / No