M/S Design Indya Through Its Proprietor Rakesh Jain v. State Of Punjab Through Its Principal Secretary, Department Of Local Government

CWP-31526-2024 (O&M) -1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP-31526-2024 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.11.2024 M/s Design Indya through its proprietor Rakesh Jain ..... Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab through its Principal Secretary and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSH BUNGER

Present:

Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab.

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for respondent No.3.

***** HARSH BUNGER J. (ORAL) Prayer herein is, inter alia, for issuance of a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to remove the media/advertisements and unipoles erected in the area of Bus Terminal, Patiala and Rail Terminal, Patiala as the same are in violation of Clause No.8.1.1 (vi) of the Punjab Municipal Outdoor Advertisement Policy, 2018 and Bye-laws framed thereunder.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that for redressal of grievance of the petitioner, he has submitted legal notice dated 14.09.2024 (Annexure P-3), but the same has not been adverted to by the concerned authorities, till date.

HIMANI GUPTA 2024.11.25 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh

CWP-31526-2024 (O&M) -23.

On advance service of copy of petition, Mr. Rajesh Sehgal, Addl. A.G., Punjab appears on behalf of the respondent-State. 4.

Learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 submit that respondent No.3 (Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Patiala)/competent authority shall take decision either way, on the pending legal notice dated 14.09.2024 (Annexure P-3) of the petitioner within a period of three months from today, after affording due opportunity of hearing to all the concerned parties.

5.

Learned counsel for the petitioner, keeping in view the aforesaid submissions made by learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3, submits that he does not intend to press the instant writ petition any further, at this stage. 6.

Keeping in view the submissions made by learned counsel for the parties, the present writ petition is disposed of accordingly. 7.

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed. 22.11.2024 (HARSH BUNGER) Himani JUDGE

1. Whether speaking/reasoned :

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable :

Yes/No HIMANI GUPTA 2024.11.25 12:18 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document/judgment High Court, Chandigarh