Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2025 DAILYLAW 51990 (PNJ)

NARESH ARORA v. HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (HSVP) THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR

CWP/12275/2025 · 2025-05-02

Alok Jain, Sudhir Singh

body2025

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-12275-2025 (O&M) -:1:- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-12275-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:-02.05.2025 NARESH ARORA & ANOTHER … Petitioners Versus HARYANA SHEHRI VIKAS PRADHIKARAN (HSVP) THROUGH ITS CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR ... Respondents -.- CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDHIR SINGH HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK JAIN Present:- Mr. Aniket Aggarwal, Advocate and Mr. Akinchan Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate alongwith Mr. Gaurav Bansal, Advocate and Mr. Saanvi Singla Advocate for HSVP- respondents **** SUDHIR SINGH J .(Oral) By way of the present writ petition, the petitioners have sought issuance of an appropriate writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the official respondents to complete the development works and provide basic amenities on the plot of the petitioners by removing encroachments made by private respondents. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners have already made a representation dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-11) to the competent authority for redressal of its grievances, but no action has been taken thereon till date. He further submits that the petitioners would be GAURAV SOROT 2025.05.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-12275-2025 (O&M) -:2:- satisfied, if the respondent authorities are directed to deal with its concerns/grievances and pass appropriate order on the said application. 3. Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Ankur Mittal, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents-HSVP and submits that the said representation shall be considered and decided by the competent authority, in accordance with law. 4. Without commenting on merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 (competent authority), to look into the pending representation dated 04.02.2025 (Annexure P-11) of the petitioners and pass an appropriate reasoned order thereon, in accordance with law, preferably within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of copy/production of this order. 5. Pending application(s), if any, shall also stand disposed of. (SUDHIR SINGH ) JUDGE (ALOK JAIN) 02.05.2025 JUDGE Gaurav Sorot Whether reasoned / speaking? Yes / No Whether reportable? Yes / No GAURAV SOROT 2025.05.08 10:32 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document