IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21171 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION: December 17, 2008 Manoj Mangla and another …Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners. 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioners have filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution seeking a direction to the respondents to grant permission for change of land use (CLU) for construction of Warehouse at village Jori, District Gurgaon. 2. The petitioners are agriculturists and also engaged in the manufacturing of Poultry Feed. The intend to construct Godowns over the plot situated at Gurgaon-Pataudi Road. On 25.4.2007, the C.W.P. No. 21171 of 2008 petitioners applied for grant of permission for CLU by depositing a sum of Rs. 65,862/- with the Director, Town and Country Planning, Haryana-respondent No. 2. The demand draft was encashed on 9.6.2007, which is evident from the certificate issued by the State Bank of Patiala, dated 19.1.2008 (P-3). The petitioners have claimed that as per the provisions of Section 8(4) of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas (Restriction of Unregulated Development) Act, 1963, it was incumbent for the respondents to decide their application within three months. However, the matter is stated to be under consideration of the respondents. The petitioners have also sent a legal notice dated 4.2.2008 (P-4). A representation has also been made by the petitioners on 28.9.2008 (P-7) but the same has not evoked any response. 3. We have heard the learned counsel for the petitioners at some length and perused the paper book. 4. Before disposing of the instant petition we deem it appropriate to refer to the views of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association v. Union of India, (2005) 6 SCC 344. In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment it has been required that whenever notice under Section 80 C.P.C. or under any similar provision is sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, a demand justice notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioners have sent legal 2 C.W.P. No. 21171 of 2008 notice dated 4.2.2008 (P-4) and also made representation dated 28.9.2008 (P-7) to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice/representation has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition at this stage with a direction to the Director, Town and Country Planning Haryana-respondent No. 2 to take cognizance of the legal notice dated 4.2.2008 (P-4) and the representation, dated 28.9.2008 (P-7) sent by the petitioners and decide the same expeditiously preferably within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. It shall be appreciated if a speaking order is passed. 5. Petition stands disposed of in the above terms. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) December 17, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3