CWP No.2662 of 2008 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH * * * * * CWP No.2662 of 2008 Date of decision : October 20, 2008 * * * * * Satish Kumar and another ............Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others ...........Respondents * * * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH * * * * * Present: Mr. Arun Takhi, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Shekhar Verma, Advocate for Mr. Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent nos. 2 & 3. * * * * * 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgement? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? M.M KUMAR, J. The petitioners have approached this Court with a prayer for quashing order of Cancellation in respect of House No. HL-428, Phase-VII, Mohali dated 30.12.2003 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Estate Officer, Punjab Urban Planning and Development Authority, PUDA Bhawan, Phase-VIII, Mohali, which is now known as GMADA. CWP No.2662 of 2008 2 A further Prayer has also been made for quashing order dated 11.5.2006 (Annexure P-8), whereby the appeal filed by the petitioners against the order of cancellation has been dismissed by the Chief Administrator, GMADA and also for quashing the order dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure P-10) passed by the Principal Secretary to Government of Punjab, Department of Housing and Urban Development, Punjab. In all the orders, the petitioners have been found guilty of violating the conditions of allotment as they have been running Karyana Shop and Ration depot in the residential building. It was further found that they have raised construction which is not compoundable. When the matter came up for consideration, learned counsel for the petitioners stated that all the violations which have been found by the Estate Officer as also pointed by the other authorities, stand removed. Thereafter on 3.3.2008, learned counsel for the GMADA, had stated before a Division Bench that the unauthorised construction stood removed. On the aforementioned statement, the operation of the orders passed by the appellate authority dated 10.4.2007 (Annexure P-10) and 31.12.2007 (Annexure P-11) were stayed. Learned counsel for the parties have reached a consensus that the matter has been rendered infructuous practically because after removal of violations there could not possibly be any objection for restoring the site to the petitioner. However, counsel for the respondents states that there are transfer charges and certain other charges which the petitioner may have to bear. Keeping in view the nature of the controversy and the CWP No.2662 of 2008 3 removal of violations by the petitioners, we deem it just and appropriate to dispose of the writ petition and quash the orders Annexures P-3, P-8, P-10 with a direction to the respondents to restore the site to the petitioner after calculating the charges payable by them. The needful shall be done within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( M.M KUMAR ) JUDGE October 20, 2008 ( JORA SINGH ) ritu JUDGE