CWP No. 2813 of 2008 1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
*****
CWP No. 2813 of 2008
Date of decision : November 14, 2008
*****
M/s Dev Builder and Colonizers (P) Ltd
............Petitioner
Versus
Competent authority and another
...........Respondents
*****
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH
*****
Present: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate for the respondents.
*****
1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to
see the judgement?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest?
M.M KUMAR, J.
The petitioner has approached this Court with a prayer for
issuance of direction to the respondent to grant licence under the
name and style of Golden Enclave at Village Dhandra Thakarwal,
Tehsil and District Ludhiana on land measuring 49.55 acres.
In response to notice of motion, respondents have filed a
written statement. When the matter came up for further
consideration on 7.11.2008, it transpired that the petitioner was
issued a letter dated 11.10.2006 (incorrectly mentioned in the last
order as 8.11.2006) requiring him to comply with the conditions
CWP No. 2813 of 2008 2
mentioned therein. In the written statement, the stand taken is that
there is revised policy and accordingly further conditions are required
to be complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner had argued
that at no stage compliance of additional requirements was intimated
and therefore, there was no legal obligations caste on the petitioner
to comply with the same.
Accordingly we had issued directions to the counsel for
the respondents to obtain instructions as to when the requisite
licence could be issued to the petitioner. In response to the
aforementioned direction, Sh. Balwinder Singh learned counsel for
the respondents, has placed on record a copy of the licence dated
12.11.2008 showing that the licence has been issued to the
petitioner. The same is taken on record as Mark `A’. Mr. Tushar
Sharma, learned counsel for the petitioner has stated that the instant
petition has been rendered infructuous and the petitioner should be
given liberty with regard to Clause No.10 because a separate letter is
sought to be issued by the respondents regarding payment of CLU
charges, external development charges and licence fee.
In view of the above, the instant petition is dismissed as
having been rendered infructuous. However, the petitioner shall be
at liberty to challenge any separate letter in pursuance to Clause 10
as prayed.
( M.M KUMAR )
JUDGE
November 14, 2008 ( JORA SINGH )
ritu JUDGE