Chetan Sehgal v. Vinni Mahajan And Others

In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana At Chandigarh COCP-1755-2020 (O&M) Date of Decision:-3.9.2020 Chetan Sehgal ... Petitioner

Versus

Mrs. Vinni Mahajan and others ... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE GURVINDER SINGH GILL Present:- Shri Chetan Sehgal, petitioner in person.

Ms. Anu Chatrath, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Ms. Ekjot Sandhu, Advocate for respondent No.6. (proceedings conducted through video conferencing) ***** GURVINDER SINGH GILL, J.(Oral) 1.

The petitioner alleges violation of order dated 31.7.2020 (Annexure P-6/A) passed in CWP-11001 of 2020, which reads as follows: "Notice of motion, returnable on 25.08.2020.

Mr. Navdeep Chhabra, learned Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, takes notice for respondent Nos. 1 to 3 and 7. Service be effected upon respondent Nos. 4 to 6 and respondent Nos. 8 to 10 for the date fixed.

In the meanwhile, the Executive Engineer, Nagar Council, Kotkapura, respondent No. 6, shall ensure that the private respondents do not undertake any activity contrary to the applicable Rules/Schemes with regard to diversion of the drainage/road water." PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.09.03 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

( 2 ) COCP-1755-2020 (O&M) 2.

The petitioner, while drawing the attention of this Court to Annexure P-1, has referred to item at serial No.2 pertaining to construction of drain measuring 360 feet and has submitted that the respondents till date have not constructed the same resulting in accumulation of water.

3.

I have heard the petitioner and have also perused order dated 31.7.2020 (Annexure P-6/A).

4.

A perusal of aforesaid order shows that the Executive Engineer had been directed to ensure that the private respondents do not undertake any activity contrary to the rules as regards diversion of drainage/road water. 5.

The petitioner, however, has not been able to show as to which act has been undertaken by the private respondents, which is contrary to the rules, so as to justify initiation of proceedings under Contempt of Courts Act. 6.

The petition is sans merit and is hereby dismissed. 7.

Needless to mention the petitioner would be at liberty to have recourse to appropriate legal remedies for the purpose of ensuring that the needful is done for drainage of the rain water which has accumulated in some parts of the area in question.

3.9.2020 ( Gurvinder Singh Gill ) pankaj Judge Whether speaking /reasoned Yes / No Whether Reportable Yes / No PANKAJ KAKKAR 2020.09.03 15:02 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document