C.W.P. No.5157 of 2010 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.5157 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 21.05.2010 A.K. Engineering Works through its Proprietor Amarjit Singh son of Sh. Harnek Singh resident of H.No.239, Phase XI, SAS, Nagar, Mohali ........Petitioner Versus Chandigarh Administration through the Advisor to the Administrator, Deluxe Building, Sector 9, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Paras Money Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate for the respondents. Mr. Rupam Jain, Advocate for the applicant in C.M. No.5626 of 2010. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. There is an application for impleadment at the instance of the owner of the premises complaining that the petitioner has done several acts, which he is not authorized to do. I do not think it is necessary to entertain an inter se dispute between the petitioner, who is stated to be a tenant and the person, who claims to be an owner of the premises. Both the parties have independent remedy by appropriate proceedings before the Rent Controller or a Civil Court and the scope of the writ petition cannot be widened and C.W.P. No.5157 of 2010 (O&M) -2- reopened at the instance of the applicant, who has a private score to settle. 2. The application for impleadment is dismissed. 3. By an order dated 09.04.2010, I had directed that the premises, which have been seized shall be unsealed to enable the petitioner to remove the violations complained of. I had also directed that the petitioner shall not carry out any commercial activity after the removal of the misuse and the violations. I had also sought for an inspection report from the Administration and the learned counsel, Sh. K.K. Gupta has filed the inspection report in respect of the disputed premises stating that all the violations have been removed. 4. In view of the subsequent developments, which have taken place, the directions for sealing of the premises are quashed and the petitioner shall be entitled to put to use the premises in the manner as permissible by law. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE May 21, 2010 Pankaj*