IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.12669 of 2006 Date of decision: 11th November, 2009 Subhodeep Dutta and others … Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Ms. Madhu Tewatia, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Sunil Nehra, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana for the State. Mr. Ashish Chopra, Advocate for respondent No.3. Ms. Nupur Singh, Advocate for Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for respondent No.4. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Petitioners in the present writ petition seek directions that the respondents be restrained from changing the use of the site earmarked as open space into a site for nursery schools and from affecting additional construction of shops. During the course of arguments, counsel for the petitioners has stated that at the moment, she will press the prayer No.6 made in the present writ petition, which reads as under: “VI. Issue a writ of certiorari or any other writ order or direction quashing the declaration dated 18.07.2002 being defective, illegal, arbitrary and against the provisions of the Haryana Apartment Ownership Act, 1983, Group Housing Scheme of the Govt. and directing Respondent No.3 to file the Civil Writ Petition No. 12669 of 2006 Statutory Declaration in accordance with law and further directing Respondent Nos.1 and 2 not to give effect to the impugned declaration” Learned counsel has further submitted that the residents of Rich Reg Condominium Association are entitled to use the Community Club constructed and operated by the Builder. Counsel has further stated that as far as prayer No.6 is concerned, her case is squarely covered by the ratio of law propounded by Division Bench of this Court in ‘Cap. (Retd.) Manmohan Lowe and others v. State of Haryana and others’ Civil Writ Petition No.960 of 2000, decided on 9th September, 2009 therefore, as per the terms of the order, she be relegated to the competent authority to take decision on prayer No.6 made in the writ petition and other disputes. Learned counsel has further submitted that the question as to whether residents of Rich Reg Condominium Association are entitled to use the Club or not, may also be decided by the competent authority. Counsel for the petitioners has further submitted that she may also be allowed to state all the disputes in the representation, which will be filed by her. To this, Mr. Ashish Chopra has no quarrel. However, he has stated that the respondents have already taken a decision to assail the mandate of law laid in Cap. (Retd.) Manmohan Lowe’s case (supra), but till the order is set aside, they are bound by the observations made by Division Bench of this Court. After hearing counsel for the parties, present writ petition is disposed of with observation that petitioners, in terms of judgment rendered in Cap. (Retd.) Manmohan Lowe’s case (supra), for answering the prayer No.6 made in the present writ petition and resolution of other disputes, including use of Community Club, may approach the competent authority by filing a detailed representation. In case such a representation is filed, in 2 Civil Writ Petition No. 12669 of 2006 terms of directions issued by Division Bench of this Court in Cap. (Retd.) Manmohan Lowe’s case (supra), the competent authority shall proceed to decide the representation to be submitted by the petitioners. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 11, 2009 rps 3