IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 22450 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 02.12.2011 Gagan Goel .... PETITIONER Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Ashok Sehgal, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner has filed the instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuing direction to the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No.1 herein) to decide the appeal dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-4A) filed by the petitioner under Section 18 of the Chandigarh Estates Rules, 2007, against the order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Assistant Estate Officer, Exercising the powers of the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No.2 herein), with regard to the property in dispute. It is the case of the petitioner that in the aforesaid appeal dated 28.11.2011, he has also prayed for staying the operation of the order dated 15.11.2011 during the pendency of the appeal, but till date neither the CWP No. 22450 of 2011 -2- appeal nor the prayer of the petitioner for staying the operation of the order challenged in the appeal, has been heard and considered, and on the other hand, in terms of the impugned order, premises of the petitioner would be sealed. Notice of motion. On our asking, Shri Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for Union Territory, Chandigarh, who is present in Court, accepts notice. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Chief Administrator, Union Territory, Chandigarh (respondent No.1) to consider and decide the appeal dated 28.11.2011 (Annexure P-4A) filed by the petitioner, in accordance with law, after hearing the petitioner, by passing a speaking order, within a period of two months from today, and till the decision of the appeal, the order dated 15.11.2011 (Annexure P-2), which has been challenged in the appeal, be not implemented. Copy of the order be given dasti to learned counsel for the parties, on payment of usual charges. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 02, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE