NAVNEET GUPTA AND ANOTHER v. UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS
CWP/21189/2025 · 2025-08-20
Anupinder Singh Grewal, Deepak Manchanda
body2025
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 83000 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
DailyLaw.ai
[ 2025 DAILYLAW 83000 (PNJ) · dailylaw.ai ]
Judgment text
Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.
118
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
CM-11255-CWP-2025 in/and CWP-21189-2025 (O&M)
Date of Decision: 20.08.2025 NAVNEET GUPTA AND ANOTHER .....Petitioners Versus UNION TERRITORY CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ........Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA
Present: Mr. Mannu Singh Sheokan, Advocate for the petitioners.
****
ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral)
CM-11255-CWP-2025
This is an application for preponing the date of hearing in the main petition. Mr. Himanshu Malik, Advocate and Mr. Jaivir Chandail, Advocate, have appeared on behalf of respondents No.1 to 3 and Mr. Indresh Goel, Advocate, has appeared on behalf of respondent No.4. They submit that they have no objection to the preponment of the date of hearing in the main petition. For the reasons mentioned in the application and in view of no objection of learned counsel for the respondents, the application is allowed. The main petition is preponed and taken up for hearing today itself.
SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.08.20 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.
CWP-21189-2025 (O&M) -2-
Main Case
The petitioners have impugned the order dated 28.04.2025 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.3, whereby their application for issuance of an NOC for Lease Rights has been rejected.
2.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the application of the petitioners has been rejected without assigning any reason except that a civil suit is pending. He further submits that the civil suit has no bearing on their application.
3.
Learned counsel for respondents No.1 to 3, upon instructions from Mr. Rajiv Tiwari, AEO, submits that the impugned order shall be withdrawn and a fresh speaking order would be passed after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners.
4.
In view of the above, we dispose of this petition with a direction that the petitioners would be afforded an opportunity of hearing and thereafter, a speaking order would be passed by respondent No.3, in accordance with law within a period of one month from now.
(ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL)
JUDGE
(DEEPAK MANCHANDA)
JUDGE 20.08.2025 sandeep
Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No
Whether Reportable :
Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.08.20 16:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.