Punjab-Haryana High Court
The Pink Rose Co- Operative House ... vs Arun Kumar Gupta And Others on 12 April, 2023
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
COCP-71-2021 -1-
227
2023:PHHC:050629
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
COCP-71-2021 (O&M)
Date of decision: 12.04.2023
The Pink Rose Co-operative House Building 1st Society Ltd.
... Petitioner
Vs.
Arun Kumar Gupta and others
.. Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Sourabh Bedi, Advocate
for the petitioner.
Mr. Anil Mehta, Advocate and
Mr. Mayank Sharma, Advocate
for the respondents.
*******
ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN, J. (ORAL)
The petitioner alleges violation of the order dated 29.05.2019, vide
which following order was passed: -
"Prayer for grant of occupation/completion certificate, regular
sewerage and water connections etc. In this regard the petitioner
submitted various applications to the respondents which have not
been decided so far.
We would, without commenting on the merits of the claim of
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
the petitioner, deem it appropriate to dispose of the present
petition with a direction to the official respondents to consider
and decide the applications moved by the petitioner by passing
speaking orders thereon as expeditiously as possible, preferably
within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified
copy of the order. Ordered accordingly."
Respondent No.3 Sub Divisional Officer (Buildings), South Estate
Officer, Sector-17, Chandigarh has filed reply on behalf of respondents No.1, 3
& 4. As per this reply, an inspection report was sought regarding occupation
certificate for regularization of the water connection and other related issues. It
is stated that the report dated 09.08.2019 was prepared by a team of Junior
Engineers, after verifying the work and status of completion of the work of the
petitioner-Society, which pointed out various violations and objections
regarding the structure raised by the petitioner. It is further stated that again on
01.11.2019, office of Chief Architect, U.T. Chandigarh forwarded report
submitted by the Junior Engineers regarding violation by the petitioner-Society
to Architectural and Town Planning Members of PAC (Upper) and for fresh
inspection report and a noting dated 06.11.2019 was sent to the Town Planning
Wing regarding objections. It is also stated that on receiving the letter dated
18.11.2019 from the Department of Urban Planning, Chandigarh, wherein
instructions were issued to respondent No.4, a meeting was convened,
however, till date, the petitioner-Society never responded to rejection letter
dated 26.11.2019. It is next stated that the petitioner filed the writ petition by
not highlighting all the aforesaid facts that its claim already stands rejected on
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
26.11.2019, as the petitioner-Society never responded to the objections raised
by the Department of Town Planning Wing as well as Architectural Wing of
U.T. Chandigarh. The affidavit is supported by the report of Junior Engineers
and communication sent to the petitioner.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioner has submitted that in fact,
no speaking order has been passed. It is further submitted that in the order
dated 26.11.2019 in Form F sent to the petitioner-Society, objections from Sr.
No.(a) to (m) were raised and a request was made to remove the objections as
raised by the Chief Architect vide letter dated 18.11.2019. It is also submitted
that as per this letter dated 18.11.2019, Chief Architect, Department of Urban
Planning, Chandigarh has communicated to the SDO (Building), Estate
Officer, Chandigarh that the matter was examined and observations of the
department are on NP 8 to 10 and the original plan file was received and
returned for taking further necessary action. However, no action is taken.
Learned senior counsel has raised an argument that there is no
compliance of the order dated 29.05.2019 passed by the Writ Court, as no
speaking order has been passed.
On the face of it, all these arguments, which learned senior
counsel for the petitioner has raised before this Contempt Bench, whose
jurisdiction is only to see whether there is a willful disobedience regarding any
directions issued by the Court of law and not to look into merits of the case,
were never raised before the Writ Court, when the writ petition was decided on
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
29.05.2019.
At the cost of repetition, it is observed that in the order dated
29.05.2019 passed by the writ Court, it is clearly mentioned that without
commenting on the merits of the claim of the petitioner, the official
respondents are directed to pass a speaking order. Neither the order dated
29.05.2019 records the arguments raised on behalf of the petitioner as now
raised before this Court nor it is noticed that office of Chief Architect, U.T.
Chandigarh as well as SDO (Building), Estate Officer, Chandigarh has already
issued notice to the petitioner to remove the objections regarding the
construction raised at the spot, as noticed in the communication dated
18.11.2019 and 26.11.2019. The writ Court has passed the order like a post
office as the representation, which is attached by the petitioner, was sent to the
U.T. Chandigarh for disposal of the same, however, without recording to any
legal arguments or points raised by the petitioner, on the basis of which, the
respondents were to decide the same, by passing a speaking order.
The Hon'ble Supreme Court in Kranti Associates Private
Limited and another Vs. Masood Ahmed Khan and others, (2010) 9 SCC
496, while referring to a number of other judgments, held that in a judgment,
reasons have virtually become as indispensable component of decision-making
process by observing principles of natural justice.
In another judgment in Assistant Commissioner, Commercial
Tax Department, Works Contract and Leasing, Kota Vs. Shukla and
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
Brothers, (2010) 4 SCC 785, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under: -
"The increasing institution of cases in all Courts in India and its
resultant burden upon the Courts has invited attention of all
concerned in the justice administration system. Despite heavy
quantum of cases in Courts, in our view, it would neither be
permissible nor possible to state as a principle of law, that while
exercising power of judicial review on administrative action and
more particularly judgment of courts in appeal before the higher
Court, providing of reasons can never be dispensed with. The
doctrine of audi alteram partem has three basic essentials.
Firstly, a person against whom an order is required to be passed
or whose rights are likely to be affected adversely must be
granted an opportunity of being heard. Secondly, the concerned
authority should provide a fair and transparent procedure and
lastly, the authority concerned must apply its mind and dispose
of the matter by a reasoned or speaking order. This has been
uniformly applied by courts in India and abroad."
A perusal of the order clearly reflects that the arguments, which
are now being raised, were never raised before the writ Court. Even no copy of
writ petition is placed on record to find if the annexures referred to in the
representation filed after passing of the order dated 29.05.2019 were in fact
part of writ petition.
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
In view of the above, no willful disobedience is made out.
Dismissed.
However, liberty is granted to the petitioner to avail the alternative
remedy, in accordance with law, if so advised.
[ ARVIND SINGH SANGWAN ]
12.04.2023 JUDGE
vishnu
Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2023:PHHC:050629
6 of 6
