128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20185-2026 Date of decision: 06.07.2026 Suresh Kumar @ Suresh Chand ...Petitioner v/s State of Haryana and another ...Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. Japsehaj Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Pradeep Prakash Chahar, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) By way of present civil writ petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, prayer has been made for quashing of impugned order dated 14.05.2026 (Annexure P-1) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Manesar, whereby the application of the petitioner for extension of lease of dhaba (hereinafter referred to as ‘premises in question’) running in the name and style of ‘Fauji Vaishali Dhaba’ has been dismissed. 2. Learned counsel for respondent-State submitted that in the civil suit filed by the petitioner, the application under Order 39, Rule 1 and 2 was dismissed. It is further submitted that the aforesaid civil suit is pending and thus, the present petition is not maintainable. It is further argued that even the appeal filed against the said order was dismissed and even a perusal of the order passed by learned Single Bench of this Court in Civil Revision bearing No.8677 of 2025, which was disposed of vide order dated 15.12.2025, shows that the petitioner had made a prayer for extension of lease of the premises in MANISHA 2026.07.06 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20185-2026 2 question. It is argued that it is a matter of settled law that no person has any right to seek extension of lease and since the authorities have rejected his claim thus, the petitioner has no legal right now to pursue the said prayer. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioner has not disputed the above-said facts and has limited his prayer in the present writ petition only to the effect that the petitioner be granted one month’s time to vacate the premises in question. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents-State has submitted that in the said circumstances, the petitioner should be directed to file an affidavit before the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Manesar, to the effect that he would vacate the premises in question and in case, he does not do the same he would be liable for contempt proceedings and also would be liable to pay penalty. It is further submitted that present order should not come in the way of respondents to pursue their rights to recover any amount on account of unauthorized occupation. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that he has no objection to the above, but has submitted that in case, any proceedings for recovery of amount are initiated against the petitioner, then liberty be also granted to the petitioner to raise all pleas in accordance with law. 6. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case and the limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present petition is disposed of with the following observations/directions: i. Petitioner is granted one month’s time from today i.e. up to 06.08.2026 to vacate the premises in question and is MANISHA 2026.07.06 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-20185-2026 3 directed to handover vacant possession of the premises on or before 06.08.2026. ii. In case, the petitioner does not vacate the premises within the aforesaid period of 30 days i.e. till 06.08.2026, the petitioner would be liable for proceedings under the Contempt of Courts Act and also be liable to pay cost of Rs.5,00,000/-. iii. The petitioner would submit an affidavit with respect to the above said point Nos.(i) and (ii) before the Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Manesar, within a period of one week. In case, the affidavit is not submitted within the said period, the present petition would be deemed to have been dismissed. iv. The present order should not be construed as an estoppel against the respondent authorities from taking action in accordance with law in respect of the alleged unauthorized occupation by the petitioner. v. In case, any such proceedings are initiated, it will be open to both the parties to raise all the pleas in accordance with law. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) July 06, 2026 JUDGE Manisha (i) Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No (ii) Whether reportable Yes/No MANISHA 2026.07.06 18:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document