CWP No.8945 of 2009.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.8945 of 2009 Date of Decision: 06.05.2010 **** R.L. Raheja and another . . . . Petitioners VS. UT Chandigarh and others . . . . . 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. D.S. Patwalia, Advocate for the petitioners Mr. Rajesh Sethi, Advocate for the respondents ***** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). This writ petition has been filed by the lessee for himself and on behalf of the owner of the site No.24/5, Industrial Area, Phase-II, Chandigarh, seeking quashing of the order dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure P9) passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh Administration, whereby, the application moved by the petitioner for grant of extension for deposit of the revised building plans, has been rejected. (2). The subject site was resumed by the Chandigarh Administration on account of certain violations. An appeal was preferred by the petitioners, which was CWP No.8945 of 2009.doc - 2 – also declined being time-barred. The petitioners, thereafter, filed a revision petition which was allowed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT Chandigarh Administration vide order dated 27.08.2008 (Annexure P7) in the following terms:- “After hearing the parties and going through the record, I find that as per inspection the petitioner has removed non- sanctionable violations. But he has to submit revised plan and to pay composition fee for the remaining violations. In view of the fact that Sh. Raheja had died soon after the announcement of the lower court’s order, and his legal heirs were residing in Saharanpur. I take a lenient view and keeping in view the prayer of the petitioner set aside the impugned order, restore the site to the owner subject to the condition that the petitioner will submit the revised plans in respect of the sanctionable violations and pay forfeiture, composition fee etc. within two weeks failing which the order of the Estate Officer shall become operative.” (3). It appears that the above-stated order was received by the petitioners on 29th August, 2008 and they are said to have submitted the revised building plans on 11.09.2008. (4). Be that as it may, it is not in dispute that the violations have since been removed and thereafter revised plans have also been submitted by the petitioners. (5). The order dated 27.08.2008 having been complied with by the petitioners, I am of the considered view that no coercive or penal action is called for against CWP No.8945 of 2009.doc - 3 – them. The impugned order dated 27.05.2009 (Annexure P9) is accordingly set aside with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the revised building plans submitted by the petitioners and accord necessary sanction in accordance with rules and regulations. (6). The forfeited amount and/or arrears to which the petitioners are liable to pay, may be communicated to enable them to deposit the same within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (7). Needless to say that directions having been complied with, the resumption order has become redundant. (8). Ordered accordingly. (9). Dasti . (SURYA KANT) JUDGE 06.05.2010 vishal shonkar