CWP No.17634 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.17634 of 2010 Date of Decision: 29.09.2010 **** Dalip Kumar Malhotra ... Petitioners VS. Chandigarh Administration & Ors. …Respondents **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate for the petitioners ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner seeks quashing of the orders dated 10.02.2009; 27.01.2010; 18.03.2010; & 25.08.2010 (Annexure P1; P3; P4; & P6, respectively) passed by the Authorities in the Chandigarh Administration. (2). Suffice it to mention that H.No.1936, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh, jointly owned by the petitioner along with his co-owners was resumed on the plea that it was being used for other than the residential purposes. An appeal was preferred by the petitioner and his co-owner/occupant against the resumption order and during the pendency of the CWP No.17634 of 2010.doc - 2 – appeal, the misuse of the subject premises was stopped by them. Consequently, the Appellate Authority on 19.02.2010 passed the following conditional order:- xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx I, have heard both the parties. The counsel for the Estate Officer states that in the earlier report there was a typographical error and there was no misuse. She produced a copy of the latest inspection report and she states that as on today there is no violation. The counsel for the appellant stated that at no stage the violation was there and the site was resumed. Given the situation, the counsel for the Estate Officer has no object if the site is restored to the appellant. Accordingly, the site is restored. However in case there is any penalty, misuse charges, interest etc. which are payable as per rules, that shall be paid by the appellant within thirty days from the date the same is communicated and received by the appellant.” xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx (3). The petitioner and his co-owners accepted the above-stated order and did not challenge the same to the extent it permitted the respondents to recover penalty, misuse charges, interest etc. from them. Thereafter, the impugned notice dated CWP No.17634 of 2010.doc - 3 – 18.03.2010 (Annexure P4) has been served upon the petitioner/co-owners asking them to pay `6,78,721/- towards the misuse charges. The petitioner filed revision petition against the above- stated order which has also been dismissed. (4). As the facts would speak for themselves, the site was restored in favour of the petitioner/co- owners/occupants subject to payment of penalty, misuse charges, interest etc. They cannot, therefore, escape from the liability to pay these charges. (5). Consequently, the writ petition fails and is, accordingly, dismissed. (6). However, if the petitioner(s) has any grievance against the manner of assessment of the misuse charges etc., liberty is granted to him/them to move an application within one week from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order before the Estate Officer who shall furnish the details to the petitioner as to how the misuse charges etc. have been calculated, as per the Rules, within a period of two weeks thereafter. (7). Dasti . 29.09.2010 vishal shonkar (SURYA KANT) JUDGE CWP No.17634 of 2010.doc - 4 –