Civil Writ Petition No. 9101 of 2009 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh. Civil Writ Petition No. 9101 of 2009 Date of Decision: 20.7.2009 DLF Phase-IV Residents Welfare Association … Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and Others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR, CHIEF JUSTICE. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. Whether to be referred to the reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Mr. S.K. Sahijpal and Mr. Aman Pal, Advocates for the petitioner. Mr. Randhir Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Dhruv Dayal, Advocate for Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate for respondent No.3. Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocate for respondents No.4 and 5. T.S. Thakur, C.J. (Oral) In this petition, filed in public interest, the petitioner makes a grievance against, what according to it, is a failure on the part of the respondents in the performance of their statutory obligations under the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975 and the Civil Writ Petition No. 9101 of 2009 2 Haryana Urban Development Authority (Erection of Building Regulations) Act, 1979. The petitioner also prays for a mandamus restraining the respondents from converting the sites earmarked for open area into commercial structures/projects and further restraining them from misusing/changing the land use of the sites reserved for open area to any other use. A mandamus directing the respondents not to convert public utility service sites into commercial sites and ventures has also been prayed. Appearing for the petitioner, Mr. S.K. Sahijpal, Advocate, submitted that the petitioner-Association had represented to the Director, Town & Country Planning, under Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, against the violation of the terms of the licences granted to the Colonizers, but the Director has failed to consider the said representation and pass any effective order on the same. This, according to him, has left no alternative for the petitioner except to file the present writ petition for the intervention of this Court in public interest. A counter affidavit filed on behalf of respondent No.2 denies the allegations made in the writ petition. Mr. Randhir Singh, counsel appearing for the Director, Town & Country Planning-respondent No.2, argues that the petitioner-Association was free to point out any specific instances of violations of the conditions of the licences especially where such violations are in the nature of conversion of residential or public utility site into commercial or otherwise, in which event the Director would look into the matter and pass appropriate order in accordance with law within such time as may be fixed by this Court. Civil Writ Petition No. 9101 of 2009 3 Counsel appearing for respondents No.4 & 5 argues that the Director has already examined similar issues as are being raised by the petitioner-Association and passed an exhaustive order dealing with each one of the existing norms. The Director could all the same examine the matter afresh if the petitioner-Association was keen to pursue the same. In so far as respondent No.3-School is concerned, the affidavit filed on its behalf, inter-alia, states that all the allegations made by the petitioner-Association against the construction of School building, have been looked into by the Director, at the instance of Condominium Association and found that there was nothing wrong with the proposed construction. From the submissions made at the bar, it is evident that there are allegations about violation of the conditions of the licences and alleged improper conversion of the sites reserved for specific purposes. Some of these allegations, according to respondents, have been examined and found to be without any basis. We do not, however, consider it necessary to go into the merits of the allegations or the manner in which the Director has taken a decision in the proceedings before him. All that we need say is that since the Director is, in terms of Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, competent to entertain the petitioner's representation and complaint regarding the violations of condition of licences of all Colonizers, there is no reason why the petitioner-Association cannot take resort to the said mechanism which, in our opinion, is equally efficacious. We also see no reason why the Director should not be in a Civil Writ Petition No. 9101 of 2009 4 position to examine the complaint which the petitioner-Association has made and pass specific orders on each point raised by them, in accordance with law. This is particularly so when the Director had, in C.W.P. No. 17753 of 2001 disposed off by us on 30.1.2009, specifically undertaken to look into any complaint which he may receive from any quarters regarding violation of the terms of the licences and pass appropriate orders on the same. In the result, we allow the present writ petition but only to the limited extent that the petitioner-Association shall be free to file a representation before the Director in terms of Section 8 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975, in which event the Director shall examine the said representation/complaint and pass appropriate orders, in accordance with law, giving an opportunity of being heard to all those, who are likely to be affected by the decision which he may eventually take. The Director shall do the needful expeditiously, but not later than six weeks from the date of receipt of the representation and a copy of this order. Needless to say that the parties aggrieved by any such order shall be free to seek redress before the competent forum, in accordance with law. No costs. (T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice (Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia) Judge July 20, 2009 “DK”