HC refuses to entertain Hind Samachar group hotel’s plea against demolition, rules out ‘political vendetta’ angle

Rejecting allegations of political vendetta, the Punjab and Haryana High Court on Tuesday declined to entertain a writ petition filed by Chopra Hotels Private Limited against demolition action initiated by the Jalandhar Municipal Corporation (MC). The company is linked to the Hind Samachar and Punjab Kesari newspaper group.

Justice Ramesh Kumari upheld the preliminary objection raised by the Jalandhar MC that the writ petition was not maintainable in view of Section 269 of the Punjab Municipal Corporation Act, 1976, and relegated the petitioner to approach the district judge.

“The preliminary objection raised by the respondents is upheld. The instant petition is disposed of without commenting upon merits, relegating the petitioner to avail alternate statutory remedy under Section 269 of the Act,” Justice Ramesh Kumari ruled.

‘Political vendetta’ plea rejected at threshold

The hotel company had challenged two orders passed by the MC, including decisions dated November 6, 2025, refusing “to grant relaxation from demolition of non-approved construction”.

The petitioner alleged that the orders were passed because it was the “publisher of a group of newspapers, Hind Samachar and Punjab Kesari.”

It was added that these newspapers did not toe the government's directions/policies,” and the action was driven by political vendetta.

But the plea failed to find favour with Justice Ramesh Kumari. The Bench observed it was undisputed, during the course of the argument, that the hotel construction was not in conformity with the approved site plan. “If the construction of the hotel of the petitioner is not as per the approved site plan, then any action taken by the statutory authority cannot be termed as a result of political vendetta.”

Statutory remedy under Section 269

Opposing the petition, Punjab Advocate-General Maninderjit Singh Bedi, along with counsel Ferry Sofat and Sangam Garg, argued on Jalandhar MC’s behalf that Section 269 of the Act provided a complete mechanism of appeal before the District Judge against demolition orders, which the petitioner had bypassed.

“Section 269 of the Act makes it abundantly clear that the appeal lies against the orders before the Court of District Judge of the city where the premises are situated, within the period specified in the order for demolition of the erection, and the petitioner, instead of approaching the Court of District Judge, has filed the present petition,” Justice Ramesh Kumari asserted.

No finding on merits

Clarifying the scope of its order, the Bench added: “Since no order on merits has been passed, any assertion on merits is only meant for the purpose of deciding the preliminary objection raised by the respondents and shall have no bearing on the merits of the case before any other competent statutory authority or in any other proceedings.”