IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.9950 of 2008 Date of decision: March 4, 2009. Satinder Singh Karan & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Chandigarh Administration & Anr. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri R.S. Bajaj, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Shri Rajiv Narain Raina, Advocate, for the respondents. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.9950 & 9951 of 2008 as common questions of law and facts are involved in both these cases. The petitioners seek quashing of the order dated 21.11.2007 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, which is reported to have been dispatched on 14.3.2008. vide this order, the petitioners' request to waive off the 20% penal interest and penalties in respect of booth sites allotted to them in Sector 38-C, Chandigarh has been declined. Notice of motion was issued and in response thereto, a short reply affidavit has been filed by the respondents taking a preliminary objection that an alternative remedy of appeal against the impugned orders under the statutory rules is available to the petitioners. Faced with this situation, Learned Counsel for the Petitioners submits that filing of the appeal at this belated stage may not be an efficacious alternative remedy, as the appellate authority might not entertain the same being time-barred. Learned Counsel for the Respondents, on the other hand, submits that in case the petitioners file the appeal within a stipulated period, no objection regarding limitation shall be raised on behalf of the respondents. In the light of the above noticed fair stand taken on behalf of the respondents, this writ petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to prefer an appeal before the appellate authority within two weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. If such an appeal is preferred by the petitioners, the appellate authority is directed to decide the same on merits as early as possible but not later than three months. Till then, it is directed that the recovery of the penal/compound interest be not affected from the petitioners. However, if it is found that the petitioners are delaying adjudication of the appeal, the respondents shall be at liberty to seek modification of the interim directions. March 4, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge