C.R. No. 4078 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh. C.R. No. 4078 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 05.07.2010 Municipal Council, Panchkula and another ....Petitioners Versus M/s. Social Promoters (India) and another ....Respondents. Coram:- Hon'ble Mr. Justice Alok Singh 1.Whether reporters of local news papers may be allowed to see judgement ? 2. To be referred to reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr. G.S. Hooda, Advocate for the petitioners. ... Alok Singh, J.(Oral) Petitioner is invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Article 227 of the Constitution of India, challenging order dated 25.8.2008 passed by the trial Court and the order dated 9.2.2010 passed by the Appellate Court, thereby allowing ad interim injunction application moved by the plaintiff – respondent. Plaintiff – respondent was granted contract to install 19 gypsy shelters of advertising size 156 sq.ft. each and 20 Traffic Umbrellas of advertising size 60 sq. ft. each at the designated point as fixed by the Superintendent of Police, Panchkula and the Executive Officer, Municipal Council, Panchkula. Plaintiff has paid installation charges of Rs.3,22,560/- C.R. No. 4078 of 2010 2 on 12.4.2007 and installed Gypsy Shelters and Traffic Umbrellas of advertisement as per the agreement. All of a sudden, the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula issued order/notice dated 19.2.2008 indicating therein that the Municipal council, Panchkula has not followed proper procedure while assigning the advertisement work to the plaintiff and no approval was obtained from the House before the grant of the contract. Feeling aggrieved from the impugned order/notice dated 19.2.2008 issued by the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula, plaintiff filed suit for permanent prohibitory injunction alongwith application for ad interim injunction restraining the defendant from interfering in the work granted to the plaintiff. Both the Courts below agreed with the plaintiff and allowed the application for ad interim injunction. Undisputedly, contract was granted in March, 2007 and the impugned order/notice was issued in February, 2008, almost after one year. The Appellate Court in the impugned judgement in para 6 has observed as under: - “When defendant No.4 i.e. the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula issued the impugned notice-cum-order dated 19.2.2008, at that time, the amended by-laws called as the Haryana Municipal (Control & Advertisement) Bye-laws 2007 had come into force, the rule 6 of which provided that no person shall erect except the fixed or retain any advertisement upon any land, pole or structure or any vehicle without the written permission of the Executive Officer or any other officer authorised by the Government provided that the permission already given shall be deemed to have been accorded under C.R. No. 4078 of 2010 3 these bye-laws only upto sanctioned period, but since the aforesaid bye-laws of 2007 had come into force with immediate effect as per the clause 1(2) thereof w.e.f. 8.11.2007 i.e. the date of issue of the notification with respect thereto and not with retrospective effect, so the amended bye-laws had no bearing on the agreement dated 18.4.2007, which had been entered into between the Municipal Council, Panchkula and the present respondents/plaintiffs earlier thereto.” Learned counsel for the petitioner vehemently argued that the suit is premature and could have been filed after the decision of the Deputy Commissioner, Panchkula on the notice dated 25.2.2008. Plaintiff has remedy under the Municipal Act against the order which is yet to be passed on notice dated 25.2.2008. This is well settled principle of law that if notice issued is without jurisdiction then it can be challenged before the Civil Court. Moreover, the suit is yet to be decided. The petitioner – defendant can take all the pleas regarding the maintainability of the suit or any defence available under the law. Any observation made by both the Courts below while allowing ad interim injunction application is of prima-facie nature and shall not come into the way of the Courts below while deciding the suit on merits. No illegality or jurisdictional error is pointed out in the impugned judgement. Dismissed. ( Alok Singh ) Judge 05.07.2010 sk.