IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.6152 of 2011 Date of Decision : April 06, 2011. Subhash Chander .....Petitioner versus Cantonment Board and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.K.B.Raheja, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? --- Surya Kant, J. (Oral) The petitioner is aggrieved by the notice dated 2.8.2010 (Annxure P-1) issued by respondent No.2 under Section 244 (2) of the Cantonments Act, 2006 whereby besides penalty of Rs.1,00,000/-, further fine of Rs.10,000/- per day has been imposed upon him on the plea that he has raised unauthorized construction in Bungalow No.150, Sant Lal Road, Ferozepur Cantt. The petitioner's case is two folds. Firstly that no opportunity of hearing was afforded to him before holding him guilty of raising unauthorized construction and secondly, he alleges that neither he is owner of the Bungalow nor in possession of the same and has absolutely no concern with the alleged unauthorized construction. C.W.P.No .6152 of 2011 2 Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and considering the above-stated pleas taken by him, I am of the considered opinion that in order to appreciate the controversy, it would be necessary to verify the correct facts. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to the Chief Executive Officer, Cantonment Board, Ferozepur Cantt., who in turn, is directed to hold a fact finding enquiry and ascertain the second plea taken by the petitioner as mentioned above. If it is found that the petitioner is neither in possession nor has any concern with Banglow No.150, the respondent authorities are directed not to execute the impugned notice dated 2.8.2010 against the petitioner. However, if the authorities, on consideration of the material on record and after hearing the petitioner, find that the unauthorized construction has been actually raised by the petitioner, then they shall be at liberty to proceed against him in accordance with law. The petitioner shall also, in that event, be at liberty to impugn the punitive action before an appropriate forum. Till the enquiry, as directed above, is held, the respondents are directed to maintain status-quo. Dasti. April 06, 2011 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE