IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 6649 of 2010 Date of Decision: 9.4.2010 Rajinder Pal Gupta ....Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab another ...Respondents. CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. PRESENT: Mr. Harish Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. In this petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing notice Nos. 127 and 145 both dated 5.2.2010 (Annexures P-2 and P-1) issued by respondent No.2 whereby he has been asked to demolish his building, allegedly being constructed in violation of Section 146 (2) of the Punjab Regional and Town Planing Development Act, 1995. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has submitted replies (Annexures P-3 and P-4) to the aforesaid notices to respondent No.2 but no decision has been taken thereon so far and instead the respondents are going to take coercive steps to demolish the buildings of the petitioner. Learned counsel further submits that the petitioner shall feel satisfied if a time bound direction is issued to respondent No.2 to take a decision on the replies (Annexures P-3 and P-4) submitted by him and till such decision is CWP No. 6649 of 2010 -2- taken, the buildings of the petitioner may not be demolished. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and perusing the file, it is considered appropriate to dispose of the present writ petition without issuing notice of motion to the respondents. It is directed that respondent No.2 shall take a decision on the replies (Annexures P-3 and P-4) filed by the petitioner to the notices (Annexures P-1 and P-2) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. It is further directed that no demolition shall be carried out till a decision is taken on the replies (Annexures P-3 and P-4). It is also directed that in case an order is passed against the petitioner, the respondents shall not proceed to execute the impugned orders for a week to enable the petitioner to take recourse to legal remedies available to him in accordance with law. April 9, 2010 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) gbs JUDGE