HC stays demolition of mall floor

Tribune News Service

Chandigarh, August 17

Issuing the notice of motion on a petition against grant of just three days to demolish the sixth floor of Grand Walk Mall in Ludhiana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court today stayed the operation of the impugned order.

The order by Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain came on a petition filed by GS Majestic Developers Private Limited against the State of Punjab and other respondents. The petitioner alleged one of the Directors of the petitioner-company, Gurdeep Singh, was perceived to be close to erstwhile political dispensation.

He was engaged in multiple business activities, such as transport, cable network and real estate. The petition added Gurdeep Singh, by the dint of his hard work, brought revolution in the cable industry in State of Punjab. He introduced ‘Fastway Cable’, which was one of the fastest growing cable networks in the country.

After 2017 elections, the new political executive started targeting him by issuing various notices because of his perceived close links with the erstwhile political dispensation.

“After nothing incriminating was found in the cable business run by Gurdeep Singh, the Department of Local Government trained its guns on the building developed by the petitioner,” it was added.

The petitioner also claimed that newspaper reports with statements against Gurdeep Singh and his businesses by the Minister of Local Government could be placed on record by the petitioner, if so required.

The petitioner added the high-handedness of the respondents could be gauged from the fact that on August 13 at about 11 pm, officials of the Ludhiana Municipal Corporation came to the Grand Walk mall and demolished the pavement constructed by the petitioner abutting the Lodhi Club Road. Photographs showing the demolition were annexed with the petition.

The petition added notice was not given by respondents before initiating the action of demolition. The act clearly hints at malicious intent of the respondents on account of political rivalry.

“When the employees of petitioner-company inquired about the reasons for dismantling the pavement, they were told that it was constructed over the greenbelt. Interestingly, no such green belt has been demarcated by the respondents either in the site plan or in the auction notice,” the petitioner added.

The Bench was also told that dissatisfied with illegal dismantling of the pavement, the respondents issued a totally illegal notice asking the petitioner to demolish the sixth floor within three days from its receipt.