High CourtsSingle Bench

Jaspreet Singh vs State Of Punjab & Others

Punjab And Haryana At Chandigarh · Decided on 8 April 2026 · Citation: (2026) 04 P&H CK 1630

HON’BLE JUDGES
Harsh Bunger, J
ACTS & SECTIONS REFERRED
Constitution Of India, 1950 — Article 226, 227
RESULT
Dismissed
CASE NUMBER
Civil Writ Petition No. 2659 Of 2026
Ask AI about this case

AI Structured Summary

Not yet generated for this judgment

No AI summary yet

Generate an eight-section analysis of this judgment — facts, issues, reasoning, ratio and a plain-language gist.

Judgment

9 paragraphs · 371 words

Harsh Bunger, J

1.

The present writ petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India seeking issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus, directing the respondent no.2 to remove the seal from the property of the petitioner i.e. Khana No.609/3 and 808-809-810/3-14 and 404/3-14 (MCA)(as per record of electricity department) bearing Black Plate No.T-3/304, (UID No.G-1/14988) admeasuring 25 sq. yards situated at Amritsar Urban, Mahan Singh Road, Street Mahna Singh near Lakkar Mandi, Amritsar.

1.1 A further prayer has been made for directing the respondent no.3 to restore the electricity connection at the premises of the petitioner which has been disconnected by respondent no.3 on 17.12.2025 due to which the petitioner was unable to get the premises repaired.

2.

At this stage Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate appears on behalf of respondent no.2-MC Amritsar and has referred to para 3 of the writ petition wherein a categoric stand has been taken by the petitioner that the property in question is an old construction and is in a dilapidated condition and therefore cannot be used for residential/commercial purposes.

3.

The aforesaid position is not disputed by learned Counsel for the petitioner.

4.

Faced with this situation, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that he may be permitted to withdraw the present petition with liberty to the petitioner to apply for grant of sanction for raising construction on the site as per law. He further submits that any further construction shall be raised only after seeking necessary permission/approval from the concerned authorities; however, he submits that time bound directions be issued for consideration of the case of the petitioner.

5.

Mr. Sanjeev Soni, Advocate for respondent no.2 has very fairly stated that since the entire process is to be carried through online mode, therefore, it may take sometime, subject to the petitioner furnishing complete and proper documentation.

6.

In view the above, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn with liberty to the petitioner to apply for sanction/approval by submitting the requisite/necessary documents before the competent authority, in accordance with the prescribed procedure. In the event such an application is filed, the same shall be considered expeditiously.

7.

All the pending application(s), if any, shall also stand closed.