SURINDER KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The contention of the petitioner is that vide notice dated 13.12.2016 (Annexure P-11) , the Municipal Corporation, Karnal called upon him to immediately stop further construction and remove the existing construction within a period of three days and also to appear in person on 20.12.2016. Reply to the aforementioned show cause notice was submitted on 28.12.2016 (Annexure P-12).

(2.) It is contended that the notice dated 13.12016 was received on 212016 and immediately the reply was filed but without giving any opportunity of hearing, a notice purported under Sec. 263 and 263-A of Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 dated 04.01.2017 (Annexure P-14) was served with a direction to submit proof of sanction within 7 days from receipt of notice otherwise building in question would be sealed or demolished in due course of procedure at the risk and cost of the petitioner whereas the aforementioned notice did not indicate passing of the order on the notice vide Annexure P-11.

(3.) The aforementioned notice had also duly been replied on 06.01.2017 (Annexure P-15). He submits that Sec. 263-A of the Haryana Municipal Corporation Act, 1994 has been inserted into the aforementioned Act by Act No.12 of 2013 whereby the Commissioner is vested with power that he may, at any point of time, before or after making the order under Sec. 261 or 262, order for sealing of the premises but the same cannot be ordered to be removed without affording an opportunity to the owner under sub-section 2(a) and the aforementioned order is appealable under sub-section 4. In view of such unriddled power of the Commissioner, the petitioner is apprehensive that without calling upon the petitioner and passing any order on the reply, much less, spot inspection, his premises may be sealed wherein he is carrying the business of vegetable vending and repair of motor cycles.