CWP-19336-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CWP-19336-2026 Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 Prem Kumar …Petitioner(s) Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA Present:- Mr. Gagandeep Singh Virk, Advocate for the petitioner Mr. Bhupender Singh, Additional Advocate General, Haryana TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA, J. (Oral) The petition has been filed seeking a writ of mandamus directing the official respondents to enforce the statutory notice dated 12.03.2026, Annexure P-2, issued to respondent no.5 under Section 120 of the Haryana Municipal Act, 1973, regarding demolition of a dangerous and unsafe building on which a mobile network tower is being installed. A direction has also been sought to halt, dismantle and remove the structurally dangerous mobile tower being installed by respondents no.4 and 5 (owners of the building/house), and respondent no.6/Bharti Airtel Limited. 2. Learned counsel contended that the petitioner is next door neighbour to respondents no.4 and 5, to whom the aforementioned notice has been issued as they were planning to get a mobile tower installed at the roof of their house. Installation of such a tower is dangerous to the structure, but the Municipal Council has not taken any further action in the matter. The said house PAYAL 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-19336-2026 -2- is in a dilapidated condition, and its demolition is necessary to protect the petitioner from any harm. 3. Heard. 4. It gets reflected from the record that after issuance of notice dated 12.03.2026 to respondents no.4 and 5, the petitioner filed a suit for declaration before the Civil Judge at Kurukshetra titled Prem Kumar v. Vanita Chopra, which is pending adjudication, though the petitioner has not made any specific averment to that effect in the petition. Further, learned counsel could not dispute that an application for interim injunction was also filed by the petitioner (plaintiff therein) before the trial Court which was not granted. This fact too has been concealed from the Court. Once the petitioner has already approached the trial Court against respondents no.4 and 5 with respect to the grievance raised herein, filing of the instant petition is an abuse of the process of law. The Municipal Council has already preceded against respondents no.4 and 5 with respect to installation of mobile tower on the roof of their house which is stated to be in a dilapidated condition. The notice states that looking at the condition of the building, mobile network tower cannot be permitted to be installed there and new construction is required to be raised for the purpose or special repairs are to be carried out. Only thereafter, permission to install the tower can be granted. There is nothing on record to indicate endanger to the petitioner’s life and property by installation of the mobile tower. His filing of the instant petition, therefore, appears to be an outcome of personal vengeance which also renders the petition not maintainable. 5. In view thereof, the petition stands dismissed with costs of ₹10,000 to be deposited by the petitioner with Chandigarh Spinal Rehab, Plot #1, Sector PAYAL 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-19336-2026 -3- 28A, Madhya Marg, Chandigarh, India, 160002 within four weeks. A receipt whereof will be filed in the Registry within two weeks thereafter. (TRIBHUVAN DAHIYA) JUDGE 02.07.2026 Payal Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No PAYAL 2026.07.08 18:23 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment