IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No. 1395 of 2010 Date of Decision: 06.01.2011 Bhagwan Singh ...Appellant Versus Jaspreet Singh and others ..Respondents. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH 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. V.G.Dogra, Advocate, for the appellant. **** RANJAN GOGOI, A.C.J.(Oral) The appellant was respondent No.6 in Civil Writ Petition No. 2410 of 2009, out of which this appeal has arisen. The said writ petition had been disposed of vide order dated 12.08.2010 with the following operative directions:- “Mr. Cheema, appearing for the Municipal Committee, Nakodar, on instructions from S.K. Aggarwal, Executive Officer of the Committee, submits that respondent No.6 and his wife have constructed the residential building, in violation of the sanctioned site plan. A direction was also issued to them to comply with the sanctioned plan. For their disobedience to the directions, a complaint under Section 219 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911 has been filed in the Court of Sub Divisional Judicial Magistrate, Nakodar. It is further submitted that due procedure will be followed requiring respondent No.6 and his wife to alter and modify the building, in consonance with the sanctioned site plan. It is further submitted that in case they fail to do so, the Municipal Committee will not hesitate to demolish the building, being not in consonance with the LPA No. 1395 of 2010 [2] sanctioned site plan. It is further submitted that a notice to this effect shall be issued to the concerned violators tomorrow itself and the proceedings arising out of the same shall be concluded within a period of six months from the date of receipt of a notice by the violators.” The only grievance raised in the appeal is that the observation of the learned Single Judge with regard to demolition of the building of respondent No.6 is inconsistent with the other directions extracted above under which the Municipal Committee is required to follow the mandate of law before taking any action against the building of respondent No. 6. On due consideration of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and on perusal of the operative directions contained in order dated 12.08.2010, extracted above, we clarify the aforesaid order dated 12.8.2010 to mean that any kind of punitive action against the appellant (respondent No.6 in the writ petition) including demolition can only follow after the procedure enjoined by law is complied with by the Municipal Committee. The appeal stands disposed of in terms of the above observations and directions. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) 06.01.2011 JUDGE 'ravinder'