IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.O.C.P. No.343 of 2008 Date of Decision:- 05.03.2008 Inder Singh Arora ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.Tribhuvan Dahiya, Advocate vs. Bhagat Singh and another ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the 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? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) This contempt petition has been filed alleging wilful and intentional violation of the orders dated 20.4.2006 and 15.12.2006 (Annexures P-1 and P-11) respectively passed by this Court. The order dated 20.4.2006 was passed by this court in C.W.P.No.16873 of 2004 wherein as an interim measure, it was directed that the applications of all those applicants who had applied to HUDA for allotment of sites at Gurgaon to run the business of marble shop be scrutinized by a Committee of the HUDA Officers and till then, status-quo with regard to possession at the present site from where the business activities were being run, shall be maintained. Vide subsequent order dated December 15, 2006 also, passed in the same writ petition, status-quo with regard to actual physical possession was directed to be maintained till further orders. During the course of hearing, it, however, could not be disputed C.O.C.P. No.343 of 2008 -2- by learned counsel for the petitioner that sites have already been allotted by the HUDA. The petitioner's lease period with the Gram Panchayat has also expired. In fact vide order dated 13.2.2008 passed in C.W.P.No.6056 of 2004 (Annexure P-10), a Division Bench of this Court has specifically turned down the prayer for stay against dispossession in favour of the Members of the Sikandarpur Marble Market Association which includes the petitioner also. The ad interim stay has been declined for the obvious reason that the new sites for running the business activities have already been allotted and the members of the said Association are required to shift to the new sites. The petitioner who might not have been a successful applicant for allotment of the alternative site, therefore, cannot be allowed to continue to run his business unauthorizedly from the old sites under the garb of violation of the ad interim orders which are no longer operative due to subsequent orders passed by this Court. No case, therefore, to initiate the contempt proceedings is made out. Dismissed. March 05, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE