Research › Search › Judgment

High Court of Punjab and Haryana · body

2026 DAILYLAW 26236 (PNJ)

NAND JEE SINGH v. STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS

CWP/13489/2026 · 2026-07-06

Subhas Mehla, Vikas Bahl

body2026

Judgment text

Extracted from the PDF above. The PDF is authoritative.

CWP-13489-2026(O&M) 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-13489-2026(O&M) Date of decision : 06.07.2026 Nand Jee Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr.Mahir Sood, Advocate, Mr.Arun William, Advocate, Mr.Shikhar Narwal, Advocate and Mr.Anirudh Bhaskar, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A. G. Haryana for respondents no.1 to 3. Mr.Jagjeet Beniwal, Advocate for respondents no.6 to 8. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) CM-9673-CWP-2026 1. This is an application under Section 151 CPC for vacation of interim order dated 01.05.2026. 2. Learned counsel for the parties have jointly submitted that the main case is listed for 13.10.2026 and instead of deciding the application for vacation of stay, the main case be preponed from 13.10.2026 to today and be decided. 3. Accordingly, in view of the joint request made by learned counsel for the parties, the main case is preponed from 13.10.2026 to today itself for hearing and the application stands disposed of. DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:41 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-13489-2026(O&M) 2 Main case 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the show cause notice dated 02.04.2026 (Annexure P-41) and impugned order dated 13.04.2026 (Annexure P-42). 2. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents have raised a preliminary objection and have submitted that apart from the other issues, the present writ petition is not maintainable as the impugned order is appealable under Section 19 of the Haryana Development and Regulation of Urban Areas Act, 1975. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in view of the same, the petitioner be permitted to withdraw the present writ petition. It is further submitted that the petitioner would file an appeal before the competent authority within a period of 15 days from today and it is further submitted that for the said period of 15 days, status quo as it exists today be maintained. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents have submitted that grant of the said status quo order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and liberty be granted to the respondents to raise all pleas to oppose the further extension of the said status quo order and also the main appeal, in case the same is filed. 5. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances and the fair stand taken by the learned counsel for the petitioner as well as learned DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:41 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-13489-2026(O&M) 3 counsel for the official respondents and the contesting respondents, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to file an appeal in accordance with law. 6. In case the appeal is filed within a period of 15 days from today, the appellate authority is requested to decide the same on merits after hearing all the parties concerned. For a period of 15 days, the status quo as it exists today shall be maintained. The grant of the said status quo order should not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case and it would be open to all the parties concerned to raise all pleas in the said appeal. In case the appeal is not filed within a period of 15 days from today, then, the benefit of the present order would not ensue to the present petitioner. 7. This Court has not opined on the merits of the case and it would be open to all the concerned parties to raise all pleas before the appellate authority who would decide the appeal independently. 8. Pending application, if any, stands disposed of in view of the abovesaid order. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 06, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.07 09:41 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment