IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.14899 of 2010 (O&M) Date of decision: 15.09.2011 J.C. Malhotra, Senior State Counsel, Punjab, H.No.995, Sector 7-B, Chandigarh. ...Petitioner versus Union Territory, Chandigarh, through its Chief Administrator, and others. ....Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ---- Present: Mr. Vikas Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Namrata Shergill, Advocate, and Ms. Samriti Dhir, Advocate, for Mr.Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel, for Chandigarh Administration. Mr. Navdeep Sukhna, DAG, Punjab. ---- 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No. 2. To be referred to the reporters or not ? No. 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No. ---- K.Kannan, J. (Oral) 1. After hearing the parties at length at the previous hearing i.e. on 26.08.2011, I directed the counsel for the Chandigrah Administration to take appropriate instructions whether it would be possible to allow the petitioner to continue till 31st March 2012, having regard to the difficulties expressed for finding a suitable accommodation, since his own house was said to have been let out on rent and retained by the tenant. The offer of accommodation by the Administration to the petitioner has come about in his capacity as standing counsel for the the Civil Writ Petition No.14899 of 2010 (O&M) - 2 - State of Punjab. The counsel for the Administration states that it is not possible to grant such an extension since there is a severe pressure on property and there is a long queue of persons, who deserve immediate allotments and it shall not be possible to allow the petitioner to prolong for any further time. 2. Having regard to the special circumstances pleaded by the petitioner and having regard to the response of the U.T. Administration, I would provide for a period till 31.12.2011 for the petitioner to continue and he shall vacate the premises on the expiry of the said date. His occupation shall become unauthorized and will be liable for all consequences if there is any breach. I made this order on the basis of the contention by the counsel for the petitioner that he would not press the case on merit if any reasonable time is granted to him for retention of possession of the property. This affords no precedent value for any other case. 3. The writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE 15.09.2011 sanjeev