M/S AIRPLAZA RETAIL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED vs STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS — CWP/11491/2026
Case under Constitution of India Section article 226. Disposed: --DISMISSED on 11th May 2026.
CNR: PHHC010629002026
e-Filing Number
16-04-2026
Filing Number
CWP/22431/2026
Filing Date
16-Apr-2026
Registration No
CWP/11491/2026
Registration Date
16-Apr-2026
Judge
Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger
Coram
Mr. Justice Harsh Bunger
Bench Type
Single
Category
31.2 - MUNICIPAL & PANCHAYAT LAWS ( 559 )
Judicial Branch
WRITS -I BRANCH
Decision Date
11-May-2026
Nature of Disposal
--DISMISSED
Last updated 01-Jun-2026
Acts & Sections
Petitioner(s)
-
1.M/S AIRPLAZA RETAIL HOLDINGS PRIVATE LIMITED
Adv. VISHAL GARG NARWANA
-
2.State of Haryana And others
Respondent(s)
-
1.STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS
-
2.State of Haryana And others
-
3.Director Urban Local Bodies
-
4.Commissioner, Municipal Corporation Hisar
-
5.Executive Engineer, Municipal Corporation,
-
6.M/s Suncity Entertainment Private Limited, Suncity Mall
Case History
-
Case disposedDisposed
-
11-May-2026
Mr. Justice Harsh BungerView PDF
Case Summary: CWP/11491/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed M/s Airplaza Retail Holdings Private Limited (tenant) to withdraw its petition challenging a municipal notice directing vacation of a sealed floor in a Hisar building/mall, after noting that the building owner had already filed a statutory appeal against the sealing order. The court permitted withdrawal with liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition if necessary, effectively disposing of the matter without deciding the substantive issue on whether the disputed floor constitutes a "basement." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
-
16-Apr-2026
Case filed
Registration No. CWP/11491/2026
Case Summary: CWP/11491/2026 The High Court of Punjab & Haryana allowed M/s Airplaza Retail Holdings Private Limited (tenant) to withdraw its petition challenging a municipal notice directing vacation of a sealed floor in a Hisar building/mall, after noting that the building owner had already filed a statutory appeal against the sealing order. The court permitted withdrawal with liberty for the petitioner to file a fresh petition if necessary, effectively disposing of the matter without deciding the substantive issue on whether the disputed floor constitutes a "basement." This case analysis is maintained by casestatus.in based on publicly available court records.
Explore other courts