M/S Methodex Systems Ltd. v. Estate Officer Ut Chd.

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: July 09, 2018 M/s Methodox Systems Limited .....Petitioner

Versus

Estate Officer, Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents and CWP-19140-1998 Chandigarh Optical Centre through its proprietor, Sukhdev Sharma ......Petitioner

Versus

Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUDIP AHLUWALIA

Present:

None for the petitioners.

Mr.Tarun Walia, Advocate for respondent No.1 in CWP-16428-1998 for respondent Nos.1 to 3 in CWP-19140-1998 ........

SURYA KANT, J.(ORAL) This order shall dispose of the above captioned writ petitions as the point in issue involved in both the cases is common in nature. [2] On January 09, 2018, counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh was directed to find out whether anything survives in these writ petitions or not?

[3] Learned counsel for UT, Chandigarh has shown the original

-2inspection report in respect of SCO No.45-46-47, Sector 17A, Chandigarh, which is to the following effect:- Sr.No. Observations Present status Remarks Shop sub(sic) divided against sanctioned plan Still exist at site Sanctionability through submission of Revised Building Plan and subject to be approval by PAC First Floor planning has been changed against sanctioned plan Stil exist at site Sanctionability through submission of Revised Building Plan and subject to be approval by PAC 3.

Glazing not as per submitted plan at Third Floor, i.e.

against Architectural control Still exist at site Neither sanctionable nor compoundable The occupiers of the above said site are as under:- Ground Floor Bansal Property Nand Travels 3.

Jockey Second Floor Aviva Life Insurance Third Floor Buzz"

[4] Learned counsel thus submits that as per the Inspection report, the petitioners (M/s Methodox Systems Limited and Chandigarh Optical Centre) are no longer in occupation of the ground floor of the premises. The present occupiers of the ground floor have not come forward and sought their impleadment in these proceedings. It is for this reason that no one has been appearing on behalf of the petitioners on the last several dates.

-3- [5] Since the petitioners have vacated the premises, the instant writ petitions qua them have become infructuous and the same are disposed of accordingly but without prejudice to the rights of the present occupiers, if any, which they may avail separately in accordance with law. ( SURYA KANT ) JUDGE July 09, 2018 ( SUDIP AHLUWALIA ) meenuss JUDGE Whether speaking/reasoned ?

Yes/No Whether reportable ?

Yes/No