142 Bhavya Saini ...... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & ors. ..... Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PANKAJ JAIN *** Present :- Mr. Aman Bansal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Rahul Dev, Addl. A.G., Haryana along with Dr. Harish Vashist, D.C., Panipat Dr. Pankaj, IAS, Commissioner, MC, Panipat Mr. Jitender, DTP, MC, Panipat. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3-M.C. Mr. Shreenath A.Khemka, Advocate for respondent No.7 Mr. Shailendra Jain, Sr. Advocate with Ms. Ruchi Jain, Advocate for respondents No.8 & 9. *** PANKAJ JAIN, J. (ORAL) The present writ petition has been filed seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to conduct an inquiry into the affairs of the municipal authorities. As per petitioner, M.C. authorities despite having passed the sealing order dated 05.06.2023 (Annexure P-3) followed by the order dated 29.01.2024 (Annexure P-5), POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document seeking police protection to demolish the illegal construction, have remained inert. Unauthorized construction has been allowed to continue. 2 On 02.06.2026 the following order was passed :- “Counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that despite the respondents having concluded that the construction raised is unauthorized, no action has been taken. Issue notice of motion, returnable for 08.07.2026. Ms. Upasana Dhawan, AAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.1/State. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate appears and accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3/M.C. State Counsel as well as counsel appearing for respondents/ Municipal Corporation have taken stand that since the respondents who have raised the unauthorized construction have applied for CLU, Municipal Corporation has a reason to be inert. Respondents No.3, 5 and Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Panipat to remain present in person before this Court, on the next date of hearing.” Today, Dr. Harish Vashist, Deputy Commissioner, Panipat, Dr. Pankaj, IAS, Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Panipat, and Mr. Jitender, DTP, Municipal Corporation, Panipat, are present in Court. They have failed to show any provision of law as per which, during the pendency of application for CLU, the municipal authorities are divested of their power to act against unauthorized construction. 4 Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.2 & 3 submits that the necessary action will be taken within a period of eight weeks from today. POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 5 Mr. Shailendra Jain, Senior Advocate for respondents No.8 & 9, submits that the said respondents be allowed to avail their remedies in accordance with law. 6 Without commenting on the merits of the case, the statement made by official respondents is accepted and the Court is sanguine that they shall proceed in accordance with law within time period stipulated hereinabove. Respondents are at liberty to avail remedy (s) available to them as per law. 7 Petition stands disposed off. ( PANKAJ JAIN ) 08.07.2026 JUDGE Pooja Sharma-I Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether reportable: Yes/No POOJA SHARMA 2026.07.16 16:38 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document