Representation seeking restoration of Occupation Certificate can be entertained by Authority concerned under clause 4.12 in Chapter IV of Haryana Building Code,2017:P&H HC

feature-top

Read Order: M/s Dwarka Dhruv Developers v. State of Haryana and others

Tulip Kanth

Chandigarh, November 23, 2021: In a case pertaining to the Haryana Building Code, 2017 , the Punjab and Haryana High Court has observed that representation seeking restoration of the Occupation Certificate can be entertained by the authority concerned under clause 4.12 contained in Chapter IV of the Haryana Building Code,2017 on the subject-Revocation of Occupation Certificate.

Herein, the petitioner sought quashing of a memo issued by the Estate Officer-II, HSVP, Gurugram revoking the Occupation Certificate of commercial property bearing SCO No. 53, Sector 29, Gurugram.

The counsel raised various submissions and grounds to assert that the impugned memo was bad in law and could not sustain.

The Division Bench of Justice Tejinder Singh Dhindsa and Justice Vinod S. Bhardwaj found that on August 3,2021 the petitioner had filed a representation seeking restoration of the Occupation Certificate. It was a detailed representation and one of the assertions contained therein was that the building violation had since been removed.

The Bench was prima facie of the view that such representation could  be entertained by the authority concerned under clause 4.12 contained in Chapter IV of the Haryana Building Code,2017 on the subject-Revocation of Occupation Certificate.

Thus, without even opining on the merits of the case, the writ petition was disposed of with a direction to the Estate Officer-II, HSVP, Gurugram to look into the matter and to examine the representation dated August 3,2021 and to take a decision thereupon in accordance with law and by passing a reasoned speaking order within a period of six weeks.

The Court also mentioned that it would be open for the respondents to even carry out a physical inspection of the premises since building violations had been alleged and to the contrary stand of the petitioner was that the same had already been removed.

Add a Comment