1 CWP-27144-2025 143 IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH CWP-27144-2025 Decided on: 16.09.2025 Tilak Raj Sikka .... Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE LISA GILL HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA Present: Mr. Ankur Dua, Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate for respondents No.2 and 3. **** Lisa Gill, J. (Oral) 1. Prayer in present writ petition is for quashing notice dated 19.08.2025 (Annexure P-9) passed by respondent No.3 – Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Rohtak. 2. Grievance raised by petitioner is that he is running a sawmill on the premises in question, which falls under Industrial Category. On earlier occasion, premises had been erroneously put in Commercial Category and when correct facts were brought to notice of the authorities, it was again corrected to Industrial Category. However, now again premises are sought to be treated under Commercial Category. In this respect, representation dated 25.08.2025 has been submitted by petitioner but no action thereon has been taken. At this stage, learned counsel for petitioner addresses a limited prayer SONIA BURA 2025.09.24 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document 2 CWP-27144-2025 for decision on petitioner’s representation dated 25.08.2025 in a time bound manner by the authorities. 3. Notice of motion. 4. Ms. Mamta Singla Talwar, DAG, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of respondent-State and Mr. Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 does not raise a serious objection to the limited prayer as above. 5. Writ petition is accordingly disposed of, without expressing any opinion on the merits of the matter, with a direction to competent authority to decide representation dated 25.08.2025 filed by petitioner in accordance with law, after affording an opportunity of hearing to him. In case of decision adverse to petitioner, same be by way of a speaking order communicated to him. (LISA GILL) JUDGE 16.09.2025 (MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA) Sonia JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No Whether reportable? Yes/No SONIA BURA 2025.09.24 10:49 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document