IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P NO. 20228 OF 2008 DECIDED ON : 27.01.2009 Ram Paul Malhotra and another ...Petitioners versus U.T and others ...Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT Present : Mr. H. S. Sohal, Advocate for Mr. Rajiv Kataria, Advocate, for the petitioners. SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This Civil Writ Petition seeks quashing of an order dated 01.12.1990 (Annexure P-1) passed by the Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh, whereby Site No. 335, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh allotted to M/S V.M Enterprises on 28th November, 1971 was resumed. The petitioner also impugns orders dated 13.09.206 and 07.11.2007 whereby his appeal and revision have been dismissed by the Appellate and the Revisional Authorities. He also questions the order dated 02.08.2007 passed by the Estate Officer under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, whereby they have been ordered to be evicted. It is indeed not in dispute that due to more than one violations of the terms and conditions of the allotment letter read with the bylaws made under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952, the resumption order in respect of the C.W.P NO. 20228 OF 2008 -2- abovementioned site was passed by the Estate Officer, U.T, Chandigarh. One of the partners of the allotted site, impugned the said order before the Appellate and Revisional Authorities but the same were dismissed. The orders attained finality. The petitioner-a second partner, has now come up with the plea that at the time of passing of the resumption order or the Appellate and Revisional orders at the instance of his partner, he was not heard. The petitioners' contentions have been repelled by the authorities on the ground of inordinate delay, as well as, the fact that the firm was duly heard before taking the penal action. Having heard learned counsel at some length and on perusal of the impugned orders, I do not find any merit in this writ petition. It is an admitted fact that the resumption order was passed against the allottee-firm and one of its partners unsuccessfully challenged those orders. The resumption order has already attained finality in the year 1992. In these circumstances, the petitioners' plea that he came to know about the said order only when the proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of Unauthorized Occupants) Act, 1971, were initiated, is too far fectched and cannot be accepted. No case to interfere with the impugned orders, at this belated stage, is made out. JANUARY 27, 2009 (SURYA KANT) shalini JUDGE