IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH COCP No. 626 of 2010 Date of decision:- 10.8.2010 Sushila ......petitioner vs. Mr. B.P. Singh, IAS, Chief Administrator ......respondent CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA Present: - Mr. Ashok Bhardwaj, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. H.S. Bath, Advocate for respondent. HEMANT GUPTA, J (ORAL) The Resident Welfare Association of Shalimar Enclave Village Himmatgarh, part of Notified Area Committee, Zirakpur, District S.A.S. Mohali, filed writ petition before this Court pointing out that the licensed private builder namely Shalimar Land Projects Limited-respondent No. 3 has abandoned the project without providing even the basic amenities. This Court, inter alia, passed the following orders: - At the hearing, learned counsel for the GMADA-respondent No.2, has stated that being the competent authority, the GMADA has cancelled the license of the private builder i.e. Shalimar Land Projects Limited and an inquiry into the matter by the Central Bureau of Investigation has already been initiated. Learned Counsel has also pointed out that the promoter of the project did not follow the terms of the license which has resulted into action of cancellation of that license. He has also stated that the GMADA- respondent No. 2 shall make all efforts to provide basic amenities to the residents of Shalimar Enclave within a period of six months and if further period would be required then an appropriate application shall be filed to seek extension. This satisfied the claim made by the petitioner at this stage. We hope and trust that the people of the area in question who have purchased property from the erstwhile Shalimar land Projects Limited-respondent No. 3 are provided with the basic amenities within six months subject to the aforementioned statement. However, it would be subject to the rights of respondent No. 3 to 7. It is contended that amenities as ordered have not been provided. In the reply filed, it has been pointed out that the charge of Shalimar Enclave, Zirakpur, has been handed over to Municipal Council, Zirakpur for providing the basic amenities and a sum of Rs. 20 lacs has also been released to the Municipal Council for carrying out the development work in Shalimar Enclave. It has also been pointed out that on 18.2.2010, Municipal Council has passed Resolution No. 108 for taking over the charge of development work of Shalimar Enclave, therefore, the orders of this Court are being complied with. Learned counsel for the petitioner has pointed out that it is the GMADA, who is to carry out the development work in terms of the provisions contained in Section 5 of the Punjab Apartment and Property Regulation Act, 1995 (for short 'the Act'). Therefore, the failure of the GMADA to carry out the development activities is in violation of the directions of this Court. Section 5 (13) of the Act, contemplates that if the license is cancelled, the Competent Authority may itself carry out or cause to carry out development works. Therefore, the directions to Municipal Council, Zirakpur to carry out the development work is in fact in terms of the statutory provisions. The Municipal Council has also passed a resolution to carry out the development works. In view of the said fact, it cannot be said that the order passed by this Court has not been complied with. Therefore, no further orders are called for in the present contempt petition. Consequently, the same is dismissed. (HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE 10.8.2010 preeti