Acting on a petition seeking directions to the Chandigarh Administration for removing the barricades on the road in front of the Punjab Chief Minister’s house, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday told the administration to take a final call on the issue within a month.
The directions were passed by a division bench comprising Chief Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice Arun Palli on a petition filed by advocate Ranjan Lakhanpal.
Arguing in person, Lakhanpal contended that the barricades put on the lake road from Nayagaon side were causing inconvenience to the general public, especially those living in the vicinity. These were earlier set up on account of a security threat to the Chief Minister. But the ground reality was different now and the road was required to be opened, the petitioner said.
- Varun Gandhi Under Attack Over Defence Deals: Here’s How
- This Diwali, Let Blind Students Brighten Up your Homes With Candles & Diyas
- CBI Files Supplementary Chargesheet In Sheena Bora Murder Case
- Soha Ali Khan And Vir Das Starrer 31st October Audience Reaction
- Sahara Chief Subrata Roy’s Parole Extended Till November 28
- Simple Tips To Secure Your Debit Card From Fraudsters
- New Zealand & India Team Being Welcomed In Chandigarh
- Mumbai Call Centre Scam: All You Need To Know
- Jammu Kashmir Chief Minister Mehbooba Mufti Appeals To Police: Here’s What She Said
- Shocker From Ahmedabad: Find Out What Happened
- Bigg Boss 10 Day 3 Review: Celebs Fail To Do Well in First Task
- Airtel Offers 10GB Data At Rs 259 For New 4G Smartphone Users
- Aamir Khan Starrer Dangal’s Trailer Launched: First Impressions
- TMC Supporters Attack BJP Leader Babul Supriyo
- Sri Lankan Navy Apprehends 20 Indian Fishermen
Lakhanpal also argued that a representation, dated February 6, was forwarded to the authorities on the issue but to no avail. Taking note of the petition, the bench remarked: “We are of the view that the matter is of such a nature that the authorities concerned should take a call and they are really not justiciable.”
The order reads that “however, the petitioner having made a representation, certainly, the respondents are required to deal with the same and communicate the decision whether it is possible to open the road now or not. We consider it appropriate to issue a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the representation of the petitioner dated February 6 within a period of one month from the receipt of the order and communicate the same to the petitioner, making it clear that there is no further PIL to be entertained on this account”.