CWP-35747-22019 -1- 246 IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIIGARH CWP-35747-22019 Date of decision : 16.07.22026 Jai Bhagwaan and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Haaryana and others ...….Responddents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PPANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Sujata, Advocate, for Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocaate, for the petitioner. Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG, HHaryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advo cate, and Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advoocate, for respondent No.6 – Municippal Committee Farrukh Nagar. * * * PANKAJ JJAIN, J. ( Oral ) 1. Counsel for respondent No.66 – Municipal Committee Farrrukh Nagar, points out that the instant writ pettition was filed seeking issuancce of writ in thee nature of prohibition restraininng the respondents from settingg up Solid Was te Management Plant. During the interregnum, the Plant alreeady stands consstructed by incurring huge expennditure from the public exchequeer. 2. From the record, it is evidentt that no interim relief was grannted during the last seven years. The petitioners did not make any effort to seek stay on the consstruction and commissioning of tthe Plant during this time. NAROTAM DASS 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-35747-22019 -2- 3. In view of the above, this Couurt finds that nothing survives in this petition andd the same has rendered infructuuous. 4. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having rendered infructuouss.

( PANKAJ JAIN ) July 16, 20026 JUDGE narotam Whethher speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whethher reportable Yes/No NAROTAM DASS 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-35747-22019 -1- 246 IIN THE HIGH COURT OF PUUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIIGARH CWP-35747-22019 Date of decision : 16.07.22026 Jai Bhagwaan and others …….Petitioners Versus State of Haaryana and others ...….Responddents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PPANKAJ JAIN Present: Ms. Sujata, Advocate, for Mr. Sidhant Vermani, Advocaate, for the petitioner. Mr. Abhimanyu Antil, DAG, HHaryana. Mr. Pritam Singh Saini, Advo cate, and Mr. Deepak Singh Saini, Advoocate, for respondent No.6 – Municippal Committee Farrukh Nagar. * * * PANKAJ JJAIN, J. ( Oral ) 1. Counsel for respondent No.66 – Municipal Committee Farrrukh Nagar, points out that the instant writ pettition was filed seeking issuancce of writ in thee nature of prohibition restraininng the respondents from settingg up Solid Was te Management Plant. During the interregnum, the Plant alreeady stands consstructed by incurring huge expennditure from the public exchequeer. 2. From the record, it is evidentt that no interim relief was grannted during the last seven years. The petitioners did not make any effort to seek stay on the consstruction and commissioning of tthe Plant during this time. NAROTAM DASS 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-35747-22019 -2- 3. In view of the above, this Couurt finds that nothing survives in this petition andd the same has rendered infructuuous. 4. Petition is, accordingly, dismissed as having rendered infructuouss.

( PANKAJ JAIN ) July 16, 20026 JUDGE narotam Whethher speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whethher reportable Yes/No NAROTAM DASS 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment