CWP No.15459 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.15459 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 06.09.2010 **** BSNL . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab and others . . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Arvind Rajotia, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. K.S. Sidhu, DAG Punjab ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. Mr. K.S. Sidhu, learned DAG Punjab accepts notice on behalf of the respondent-State. (2). The petitioner – Bharat Sanchar Nigam Ltd. (BSNL) impugns the order dated 23.08.2010 (Annexure P6), whereby, its reply/objections have been rejected and the eviction order has been passed directing the petitioner to shift its Telecom Exchange from Shahi Samadhan (District Patiala) – a “protected monument”. CWP No.15459 of 2010.doc - 2 – (3). Suffice it to say that the above-stated eviction order has been passed in compliance to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.17704 of 1997 (Munshi Ram v. State of Punjab and others) (public interest litigation) decided on October 4, 2008. (4). The only contention raised on behalf of the petitioner is that should there be fresh measurements at the spot, the petitioner can prove that the Telecom Exchange installed by it is outside the area of “protected Monuments”. (5). Having heard learned counsel for the parties and with a view to afford one more opportunity to the petitioner to prove that the land under occupation of the “Telecom Exchange” does not fall within the “Notified Area” of the “protected Monuments”, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Patiala to appoint a Revenue Officer not below the rank of Tehsildar to again carry out the measurements in the presence of the official/officer of the petitioner-Nigam within a period of two weeks. Till then, the interim arrangement made by this CWP No.15459 of 2010.doc - 3 – Court vide order dated September 1, 2010 shall remain operational. (6). However, if after the re-measurements also, it is found that the Telecom Exchange is installed within the “Notified Area” of the “Protected Monument”, the petitioner shall remove its Exchange forthwith failing which the Deputy Commissioner-cum-Collector, Patiala shall be entitled to take coercive steps in accordance with law. (7). Ordered accordingly. (8). Let a dasti copy of the order duly attested by the Bench Secretary of this Court, be handed over to Mr. Arvind Rajotia, learned counsel for the petitioner-Nigam subject to payment of usual charges, for information and necessary compliance. (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 06.09.2010 vishal shonkar