← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23435/2017disposed of

Dolly Kaur v. State Of Punjab And ORS.

2017-10-23Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mr. Justice Arun Monga2 pages

CWP-23435-2017 -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-23435-2017 Date of Decision: 23.10.2017 Dolly Kaur ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Gautam Diwan, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the recommendation/order dated 21.6.2011 (Annexure P-3) passed by respondent No.3 and eviction notice dated 21.6.2017 (Annexure P-4) qua her.

2.

A perusal of the eviction notice, Annexure P-4, shows that it is a public notice, which is issued to all the unauthorized occupants to vacate the house within 48 hours. However, on a query being put to the learned counsel for the petitioner as to whether any reply was submitted to the said public notice, it was stated that no such reply has been filed. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner pointed out that the petitioner shall make a detailed and comprehensive reply to the public notice, Annexure P-4, within one week from today. However, a prayer was made that a direction be issued to respondent No.6 to decide the same Gurbachan Singh 2017.10.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-23435-2017 -2expeditiously within a time bound manner.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the averments made in the writ petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present writ petition by permitting the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive reply to the public notice dated 21.06.2017 (Annexure P-4) before respondent No.6 within a period of one week from today. It is, however, clarified that in case any such reply is filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by respondent No.6 within a period of two weeks thereafter, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE October 23, 2017 (AMIT RAWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No Gurbachan Singh 2017.10.25 12:22 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document