IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 3121 of 2009. Date of Decision: 18th March, 2009. Manju Bala & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Gaurav Goel, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. ..Respondents through None. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL) The petitioner has been served a notice dated 18.9.2008 [Annexure P-3] in purported exercise of powers under Section 146[2] of the Punjab Regional and Town Planning and Development Act, 1995, inter-alia, alleging that they have raised unauthorised construction in violation of the 1995 Act. In response to the said notice, husband of petitioner No. 1 has already submitted a reply dated 17.12.2008 [Annexure P-5] and one of the plea taken by the petitioners is that the construction raised by them was prior to the notification dated 23.12.2004 whereby the Kurali-Majra-Chandigarh road was declared to be a “Scheduled Road” under the provisions of the Punjab Scheduled Roads and Controlled Areas Restriction of Unregulated Development Act, 1963. On this premise, it is claimed that the provisions of the Act can not be attracted retrospectively. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and keeping in view the fact that an arguable point has been made out by the petitioners, it is imperative upon the respondent authorities to consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, by passing a reasoned order. Consequently, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No. 2 to consider and dispose of the petitioners' reply to the show cause notice by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law, within a period of two months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Till then, no demolition shall be carried out. March 18, 2009. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE