IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.13838 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 14, 2010. Roshan Lal .....Petitioner versus Chandigarh Administration and another .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.Ravinder Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. -.- 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 claims himself to be a tenant in House No.1670, Sector 22-B, Chandigarh and is aggrieved by the resumption order dated 4.4.2008 (Annexure P-3) passed by the Estate Officer, U.T. Chandigarh, which has been further upheld in appeal by the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh, vide order dated 20..1.2010/4.2.2010 (Annexure P-5). The petitioner is also aggrieved by the order dated 12.5.2010 (Annexure P-7) whereby his revision petition has been dismissed by the Advisor to the Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh. It is true that one of the pleas taken by the respondent- authorities is that the petitioner being a tenant has no locus-standi to assail the resumption order. However, the respondent-authorities have C.W.P.No .13838 of 2010 2 considered the case on merits and categorically held that in utter violation of Rule 5 of the Building Bye-laws, the owner or the occupier of the subject-house has made unauthorised constructions/changes in the building without getting the site plan sanctioned. The authorities gave an opportunity to get the building plans sanctioned but the same was not done by the occupier/owner of the said premises. In these circumstances when violations still subsist, no interference with the impugned resumption order by this Court in exercise of its writ jurisdiction is called for. However, it is clarified that the aforesaid observations are without going into the question of locus-standi of the petitioner. Suffice it to say that if the owner or the occupier of the building is willing to submit the revised building plan for compounding of the violation and/or removing the un-compoundable violations, then he shall be at liberty to approach the authorities for re-consideration of the impugned action in accordance with law. With the liberty aforesaid, the writ petition is dismissed. October 14, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE