IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 21307 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 17.11.2011 Hughes Communications India Limited, Gurgaon .... PETITIONER Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Gurgaon and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Mukul Aggarwal, Advocate, and Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Dharmesh Misra and Mr. Aashish Chopra, Advocates, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Hughes Communications India Limited has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for quashing the order/letter dated 25.10.2011 (Annexure P-1), issued by the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon under Section 17 (4) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act'). In the impugned order/letter, it has been stated that in spite of an opportunity of personal hearing given to the petitioner company, neither the petitioner company appeared nor any reply was filed, therefore, the Estate Officer, HUDA, Gurgaon, in exercise of the power vested in him CWP No. 21307 of 2011 -2- under Section 17 of the Act, has directed the petitioner company to remove all the unauthorised constructions raised on the plot in question, the details of which have been given in the annexure attached with the said order/letter. A perusal of the said annexure reveals that on 8.4.2011, an inspection was carried out by a committee, consisting of E.E.II, S.D.E. (S) and ATP, and they found that instead of 750 square meters covered area, the petitioner company has built on 2248.1 square meters of area, which is in violation of the sanctioned plan and building bylaws. Undisputedly, against the impugned order/letter, the remedy of appeal lies before the Chief Administrator under Section 17 (5) of the Act, which has not been availed by the petitioner company. Learned counsel for the petitioner argued that the remedy of appeal is not efficacious, as in an earlier writ petition (CWP No. 11065 of 2009) filed by the petitioner, it was specifically admitted by HUDA, Gurgaon, in the written statement that vide report No. 520 dated 2.2.2003, the illegal construction was compounded with respect to 2300 square meters. We are of the opinion that this fact can be also brought to the notice of the Appellate Authority, while pointing out that the impugned order/letter is not correct. Therefore, merely on this ground, it cannot be said that the petitioner company has no efficacious remedy of appeal. Faced with this situation, learned counsel submits that the petitioner company may be permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty CWP No. 21307 of 2011 -3- to avail the aforesaid remedy of appeal, and the Appellate Authority be directed to decide the appeal within a shortest possible time, and during the pendency of the appeal, at least demolition of the building of the petitioner company be stayed. In view of the above, the petitioner is permitted to withdraw this petition with liberty to file appeal against the impugned order/letter before the Chief Administrator, under Section 17 (5) of the Act, by taking all the pleas, which have been raised in this petition. The Chief Administrator (Appellate Authority) is directed to decide the said appeal on merits after hearing the petitioner company by passing a speaking order within a period of two months. Till the decision of the appeal, part of the building, which is alleged to be constructed in violation of the sanctioned plan and the building bylaws, shall not be demolished. Copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the petitioner on payment of usual charges. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 17, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE