IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No.6184 of 1987 Date of decision: 21.4.2009 Dinesh Kumar. -----Petitioner Vs. The Chandigarh Administration and others. -----Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR JUSTICE ADARSH KUMAR GOEL HON'BLE MR JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN Present:- Mr. Gurcharan Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Addl. Standing Counsel for Chandigarh Administration. Mr. B.S. Rana, Advocate as Amicus Curiae. ----- ORDER: 1. This petition seeks quashing of order dated 20.7.1987, Annexure P-2, passed by the officer exercising the powers of Deputy Commissioner under the provisions of Punjab New Capital (Periphery) Control Act, 1952 (for short, “the Act”), on the ground that the petitioner had raised construction without any permission. 2. In the writ petition, case set out by the petitioner is that he had made an application for permission for construction on 10.11.1985 being Annexure P-1, to which no response was received, which amounted to deemed permission under Section 6 of the Act and the petitioner raised construction, thereafter. In the reply, C.W.P. No.6184 of 1987 averments in para 2 of the petition have been denied. It has also been mentioned that in the impugned order, name of the petitioner has been described as Ganesh Kumar instead of Dinesh Kumar, which showed non-application of mind. This aspect has been explained in para 9 of the reply. It has been stated that mistake in name occurred in getting information. However, no prejudice was caused as the petitioner was duly heard, as is clear from the impugned order. 3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 4. Question is whether the petitioner had deemed permission for construction? 5. The making of application has been denied in the reply. The petitioner has not mentioned the mode of making the application. No acknowledgement or other proof has been filed to show that the application was in fact made, nor any replication has been filed. It cannot, thus, be accepted that the application was duly made by the petitioner and he had the deemed permission to make the construction, as claimed. Error in the name of the petitioner in the impugned order has been explained, clarifying that his father’s name and address were correct and he was duly heard. 6. In view of above, we do not find any merit in the petition and the same is dismissed. 7. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that after filing of the petition, certain schemes have been introduced. The petitioner may be given liberty to make a representation, so that if his case falls in those schemes, he may avail the same. 2 C.W.P. No.6184 of 1987 8. We give this liberty to the petitioner and direct that stay granted by this Court on 16.9.1987 will continue for a period of three months from today and thereafter, the matter will be governed by such decision as may be taken on the representation of the petitioner, if any. If any representation is made within one month from today, decision be taken thereon within one month thereafter. If no representation is made, the stay order will come to an end after one month. ( ADARSH KUMAR GOEL ) JUDGE April 21, 2009 ( JITENDRA CHAUHAN ) ashwani JUDGE 3