TA No.254 of 2009 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH T.A. No.254 of 2009. Decided on 28 July, 2009. Sunil Bahri. .. Petitioner VERSUS Deputy Commissioner and others. Respondents * * * CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE M.M.S.BEDI PRESENT Mr.Amit Rawal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl. A.G., Punjab. M.M.S. BEDI, J. (ORAL) The petitioner seeks the transfer of an application under Section 9 of the Punjab Public Premises (Eviction and Rent Recovery) Act, 1973, pending before the Deputy Commissioner, Ludhiana, titled as S.P.Bahri and others Vs. Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation, Chandigarh and others, to another Commissioner exercising the similar powers on the ground that the above said appellate authority expressed its mind orally as well as by ...1 TA No.254 of 2009 conduct that no appeal can be decided in favour of any private party. Notice of motion. On asking of the Court, Mr.N.S.Pawar, Addl. Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice. Counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner has got a good case on merits, inter alia, on the ground that an earlier petition under Section 7 of the Public Premises Act, on the same grounds was dismissed by the Collector in the year 1990 but another petition was filed on similar ground in the year 2003. The predecessor, in interest of the petitioner, are actual owners of the property in dispute as per registered sale deed and the allotment letter copies of which have been placed on record. The property in dispute had not been acquired under the acquisition proceedings. I have heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the contents of the petition and considered all arguments. I am of the opinion that respondent No.1, being a respectable officer exercising the quasi-judicial authority is expected to consider all the pleas raised before him and to fairly adjudicate the matter on merits by passing a speaking order. The apprehension that the arguments of the petitioner will not be considered and appreciated properly seems to be misconceived. The order passed by a quasi-judicial authority is always subject to review under Articles 226 & 227 of the Constitution of India. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner ...2 TA No.254 of 2009 has got an intention to submit the written arguments also. I do not find any ground to transfer the case. However, it is observed that all the pleas taken by the petitioner would be considered by respondent No.1 and a speaking order will be passed after taking into consideration all the points raised before respondent No.1. Disposed of. (M.M.S.BEDI) JUDGE July 28, 2009. rka ...3