CWP No.16769 of 2020 IN THE Shakuntala Devi State of Haryana CORAM: Present: SUBHAS MEHLA, 1. Constitution quashing the vide which possession of Sector 16-A, dated 17.10.2019 has been give area under possession certificate CWP No.16769 of 2020 -1- THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB CHANDIGARH CWP Date Devi versus Haryana and others HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS Mr. G.S. Bedi, Advocate, for the Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Additional Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate, Mr. Prateek Mahajan, Advocate, Ms. Prerna Malhotra, Advocate, Mr. Vivek Singla, Advocate, and Ms. Urvashi Singh, Advocate, for Mr. Dhirendra Khadgat, IAS, Commissioner, (Through Video Conferencing) MEHLA, J. This is a civil writ petition Constitution of India for issuance of a writ the impugned allotment letter dated respondent No.2 has allotted and of a temporary booth in a parking A, Faridabad, to respondent No.7, 17.10.2019 (Annexure P-4), vide which given by respondent No.3 for erection the control of respondent No.2 certificate dated 16.09.2020 (Annexure PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16769 of 2020 (O&M) of decision: 07.07.2026 ... Petitioner ... Respondents VIKAS BAHL SUBHAS MEHLA the petitioner. Additional A.G., Haryana. Advocate, for respondent No.2. Advocate, and Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. and for respondent No.7. Commissioner, M.C., Faridabad petition under Article 226 of the writ in the nature of certiorari for dated 05.03.2020 (Annexure P-5), and consequently handed over the parking lot adjoining Metro Hospital, No.7, and further for quashing letter which ‘No Objection Certificate’ erection of a temporary booth in the No.2 as well as quashing the (Annexure P-6). the for 5), the Hospital, letter Certificate’ the the RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.09 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.16769 of 2020 2. is a handicapped aggrieved respondents contended that No.2 in favour respondent No. temporary booth disability or though the State norms of parking spaces, hotels, building of contends that an advertisement discriminatory 3. demolition allotted the compassionate social status. 4. No.7, who is having two CWP No.16769 of 2020 -2- Learned counsel for the petitioner andicapped person similarly situated by preferential treatment given respondents in allotting a “temporary medical that the allotment of a temporary favour of respondent No.7 is without No.6. He further contends that there booth in parking spaces or open public or any other person in the State of State of Haryana has published its parking for various uses like residential hotels, hospitals, etc., but the said of temporary booths/structures in that the allotment of temporary booth advertisement inviting applications from discriminatory and violative of Article 14 of Learned counsel for respondent of medical booth of respondent temporary booth site in question compassionate ground keeping in view her status. Learned counsel for respondent is a permanent disabled person to minor children to look after and petitioner contends that the petitioner situated as respondent No.7 and is to respondent No.7 by official medical booth” to her. It is further ary medical booth by respondent without approval or sanction of there is no policy for allotment of public places to the persons with of Haryana. He also contends that its policy laying down minimum residential complexes, commercial said policy does not provide for in the parking lots. He further booth to respondent No.7 without from similarly placed individuals is of the Constitution of India. respondent No.2 contends that after respondent No.7 on 23.04.2018, she was question purely on sympathetic and her physical condition, marital and respondent No.7 contends that respondent to the extent of 100%, is a widow she had applied for allotment of petitioner is official further respondent of of with that minimum commercial for further without is after was and and respondent widow of RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.09 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.16769 of 2020 a medical booth allotted temporary for a period However, the considered by 5. through the 6. reserved for by respondent purely on sympathetic physical condition learned counsel has not been disputed by months’ time expired and respondent No.7. 7. allotted by flouting Pradhikaran framed there the rules and the process CWP No.16769 of 2020 -3- booth on compassionate ground. temporary medical booth in question period of 11 months vide letter dated the request of respondent No.7 for by respondent No.2 after March, We have heard learned counsel record of the case file. Admittedly, the booth in question for parking purposes. Initially, the respondent No.2 in favour of respondent sympathetic and compassionate condition and marital and social status. counsel for respondent No.2 (Municipal been extended further after March, 2026. by counsel for respondent No.7 time to vacate the booth in question, and no further extension of lease No.7. It is, thus, crystal clear that the flouting the rules and regulations Pradhikaran that too in a clandestine manner there-under. Had respondent No.2 followed and regulations, other eligible persons for allotment of the booth in question. ground. In response, respondent No.2 question on monthly rent of Rs.4,000/- dated 23.02.2012 (Annexure R-7/2). for extension of period was not March, 2026. counsel for the parties and have gone question has been erected in the area he booth in question was allotted respondent No.7 for a period of 11 months compassionate ground keeping in view her status. However, as submitted by (Municipal Corporation), the said lease 2026. This position has not been and prays for a period of 3-4 tion, as the lease period has already lease period has been given to the booth in question has been regulations of the Haryana Shehri Vikas manner without following the policy followed the policy framed under persons would have participated in question. No.2 - 7/2). not gone area allotted months her by lease been 4 already to been Vikas policy under in RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.09 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.16769 of 2020 8. booth in question that the NOC the site/land purpose and the letter dated by serving a to be restored raise any objection 9. to grant time do not deem vacate the booth in question No.7 is in illegal petition is pending 10. of with a direction subject premises respondent No.7 period of four against her as 11. However, taking CWP No.16769 of 2020 -4- Further, as per condition No.6 question by HSVP to MC Faridabad NOC to MC, Faridabad is given purely site/land in question is e-auctioned or and utilized accordingly. It be granted dated 24.12.2018 and the permission a simple notice duly stating the pe restored to its original shape/form/status objection to it on any ground whatsoever So far as the contention of learned time of 3-4 months to vacate the booth deem it appropriate to grant such a long booth in question, as no further has been given after March, 2026 illegal possession of the booth in pending adjudication before this Court In view of the above position, direction to official respondents to premises within a period of four No.7 fails to vacate the booth in four weeks, then respondents No. as per law. We are inclined to take action taking into consideration that respondent No.6 of the of the allotment of the Faridabad (Annexure P-4), it is evident purely on a temporary basis until allotted/planned for some other granted for the period mentioned in permission can be withdrawn any time period within which it is required shape/form/status and department shall not whatsoever at a belated stage. learned counsel for respondent No.7 booth in question is concerned, we long period to respondent No.7 to extension to lease out the booth 2026, and since then respondent question. Moreover, the present Court since 2020. the present petition is disposed to take back the possession of the four weeks from today. In case, in question within the prescribed No.2 and 3 shall proceed further action against the erring officials. respondent No.7 is a widow and the evident until other in time required not No.7 we to booth respondent present disposed the case, prescribed further officials. and RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.09 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP No.16769 of 2020 suffers from any harsh order expected to holding the therefore, under used strictly transparent and 12. accordingly. 07.07.2026 Ramesh CWP No.16769 of 2020 -5- from 100% disability, we have restrained order against the officials concerned. to function as trustees of public the same for and on behalf of the under a corresponding obligation strictly for their intended purposes and lawful manner. Pending application(s), if any, accordingly. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Whether Reportable restrained ourselves from passing concerned. The officials concerned are public property and public amenities the community at large and are, obligation to ensure that such spaces are and dealt with only in a fair, any, shall stand disposed of (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No : Yes/No passing are amenities are, are fair, of RAMESH MALIK 2026.07.09 14:34 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment