IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 2041 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: 14.8.2007 Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association and another …Petitioners Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL Present: Mr. Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate, for Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Sanjeev Ghai, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 1 to 3. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, Senior Advocate, with Mr. J.P. Yadav, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. M.M. KUMAR, J. This order shall dispose of C.W.P. Nos. 2041 and 2475 of 2007. Mr. Ashwani Chopra, learned counsel for respondent No. 4 has placed on record the minutes of meeting of the Building Committee, held on 31.7.2007 at 4.00 p.m. According to the minutes of the meeting, the President of the Punjab and Haryana High Court Bar Association has accepted the proposal as mooted by the Chandigarh Administration for construction of Lawyers Chambers with parking near the office of the Advocate General. The Building Committee has issued direction to the Chief Architect, U.T. Administration-respondent No. 2 to prepare the plans and place them C.W.P. No. 2041 of 2007 before the Committee in its meeting which is to be held somewhere in the first week of September, 2007. With regard to the prayer concerning construction of Multi-Story Complex for parking in the High Court premises, again a proposal for such a project near the Rock Garden was mooted by the respondent Administration, which has been accepted by the President of the petitioner Bar Association. The Chief Architect-respondent No. 2 again has been directed to proceed with the matter by preparing plans and place the same before the Building Committee in the next meeting proposed to be held in the first week of September, 2007. A copy of the minutes is taken on record as Mark-‘A’. In view of the above, nothing survive for adjudication in these petitions. Accordingly, the petitions are dismissed as not pressed at this stage. However, the petitioners shall be at liberty to revive the petitions on showing further cause which may result from the apathy of the respondent Administration. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) August 14, 2007 JUDGE Pkapoor 2