RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner filed CWP-(PIL)-178-2021 alleging that respondent No. 6 had constructed shops in violation of the lease deed executed in its favour by the Municipal Committee, Ladwa and that despite a resolution having been passed by the Municipal Committee to take appropriate action, nothing was being done. It was also his grievance that land of the Johar had been illegally leased out to respondent No. 6. Vide order dtd. 30/11/2021, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to take a decision upon legal notice dtd. 16/8/2021 submitted by the petitioner. The said legal notice has been decided vide speaking order dtd. 9/4/2022. This order is under challenge in this writ petition.

(2.) Two issues are involved in this case -

(3.) Regarding the first issue, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that finding that permission of the Deputy Commissioner was granted vide communication dtd. 6/1/1976 is illegal because information was sought under the Right to Information Act, 2005 and reply has been received that the said communication does not relate to the office concerned. Thus, it is evident that letter dtd. 6/1/1976 referred to in the impugned order is a figment of imagination.