IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.17044 of 2009 Date of decision: 16th November, 2009 Dr. Sujata Grover … Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others … Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Amar Vivek, Additional Govt. Pleader, UT Chandigarh for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr. Amit Rawal, Advocate for respondent No.3. KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL) Present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India with a prayer that respondents be directed to decide and to act upon the letter of the petitioner dated 26th October, 2009 (Annexure P-9), wherein petitioner pointed out that the boundary wall of respondent No.3 is 30 feet away from the house of the petitioner and is in violation of layout and site plan of Sector 35. Mr. Amar Vivek, Additional Govt. Pleader, Union Territory, Chandigarh, states that in the present case, on the facts of the case, Chief Architect, Chandigarh is required to find solution. Counsel further submits that the Chief Architect, Chandigarh shall grant opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and to respondent No.3 to find out viable option in accordance with the rules and policy of the Chandigarh Administration. Mr.Amar Vivek further submits that till this necessary exercise is undertaken, Chandigarh Administration will not permit any further construction to take place at the site from today onwards. Civil Writ Petition No. 17044 of 2009 Mr. Akshay Bhan, counsel for the petitioner, accepts the proposal made by Govt. Pleader, Union Territory, Chandigarh and pray that present writ petition be disposed of in same terms. Prayer accepted. Ordered accordingly. Mr. Amit Rawal, appearing for respondent No.3, submits that under the terms and conditions of letter of allotment, he is bound to complete the construction within specified time. Counsel submits that in case Chandigarh Administration decides that construction should be stopped then the period for which the construction will be kept in abeyance, be excluded from the time granted to respondent No.3 for raising construction. Respondent No.3 is at liberty to bring into notice of the Chief Architect, Chandigarh, the prayer made and any other grievance he may have. Chief Architect, Chandigarh is directed to take decision within one month from today, on the proposal advanced by Govt. Pleader and prayer made by counsel for respondent No.3. At this stage, Mr. Amar Vivek submits that an opportunity of hearing will be afforded to all concerned. Chief Architect, Chandigarh is directed to take a decision after affording an opportunity of hearing to all concerned. Mr. Amar Vivek further states that the parties be directed to remain present before the Chief Architect, Chandigarh on 30th November, 2009 at 11.00 a.m. Parties may do so. Needless to say, any aggrieved person will be at liberty to assail the order of the Chief Architect, Chandigarh. In case petitioner is aggrieved against the order passed by the Chief Architect, Chandigarh, then for a further period of ten days, construction will not be raised so that petitioner is able to approach this Court. [KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA] JUDGE November 16, 2009 rps 2