Sign in

HC fines Kapurthala resident ₹50,000 for concealing facts

The petitioner, Amanbir Singh Jaspal, was fined in first hearing of his plea and was told to deposit the amount within three months with the “Poor Patients Welfare Fund” of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh

Updated on: Aug 1, 2021, 01:02:18 IST
Share
Share via
  • facebook
  • twitter
  • linkedin
  • whatsapp
Copy link
  • copy link

Chandigarh

HC fines Kapurthala resident  ₹50,000 for concealing facts
HC fines Kapurthala resident ₹50,000 for concealing facts

The Punjab and Haryana high court has fined a Kapurthala resident 50,000 for concealing facts before the court.

The petitioner, Amanbir Singh Jaspal, was fined in first hearing of his plea and was told to deposit the amount within three months with the “Poor Patients Welfare Fund” of the Post Graduate Institute of Medical Education and Research (PGIMER), Chandigarh, personally or through its website “www.pgimer.edu.in” and produce the receipt before the registrar general of high court.

Jaspal had approached high court seeking directions to local authorities to demolish the alleged dilapidated and unsafe portion of a building opposite bus stand, Kapurthala, owned by him. The Kapurthala municipal corporation had already directed him to demolish the building in a notice on July 28, 2020, he had claimed before court adding that 75% of the building has been demolished. The remaining 25% of the building is in possession of six persons out of which one has already vacated.

During the hearing, when the court sought more details, his counsel disclosed that these five persons are tenants in the building.

“..it is apparent that the petitioner has tried to misuse the process of the court. The tenants have not been impleaded as respondents. The tenants in occupation of the premises have certain rights,” the court said referring to provisions of the East Punjab Urban Rent Restriction Act, 1949, now been substituted by the Punjab Rent Act, 1995, according to which they are protected.

Instead of seeking their eviction from the court of rent controller, the petitioner has devised a tactful route of filing a writ petition, justice Anil Kshetarpal observed, dismissing the plea and ordering him to pay a cost of 50,000.