IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 6307 of 2009. Date of Decision: 14th May, 2009. Varinder Kumar ....Petitioner through Mr. Vivek Suri, Advocate Versus The Commissioner, Ambala Division, Ambala & Ors. Respondents through Mr. R.D.Sharma, DAG, Haryana. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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 at the orders passed under the Public Premises [Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants] Act, 1971 whereby he has been directed to vacate the official accommodation allotted in Police Colony, Sector 5, Panchkula. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, learned counsel for the parties have been heard. Suffice it to note that the Collector has passed a self- contradictory order. In the zimni order dated 16.12.2008, though the petitioner is recorded to be present, yet, ex-parte proceedings have been ordered to be initiated against him. On that very day, the eviction order has also been passed. If the petitioner was present, where was the occasion to proceed ex-parte against him? The action appears to have been taken in haste without following the prescribed procedure. The impugned order dated 16.12.2008 is set aside. As a sequel thereto, the appellate order dated 15.4.2009 also can not sustain and is accordingly set aside. The matter is remitted to the Collector, Panchkula to decide the same afresh and in accordance with law. It is made clear that at the most two opportunities shall be granted to the petitioner so that the proceedings are not delayed. In case the petitioner does not come present, the Collector shall proceed against him, in accordance with law. Till then status-quo shall be maintained. Dasti. May 14, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE