Reena v. State Of Ut Chandigarh And ORS.

-
-

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

Date of decision: 28.02.2024 1.

Reena .... Petitioner Vs.

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others .... Respondents 2.

C.W.P. No. 24076 of 2023 Ganesh Bahadur .... Petitioner Vs.

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others .... Respondents 3.

C.W.P. No. 798 of 2024 Mool Chand and another .... Petitioners Vs.

State of U.T. Chandigarh and others .... Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:

Mr. Karanbir Singh, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-24362 & 24076 of 2023). Mr. Dinesh Nagar, Advocate for the petitioner (in CWP-798-2024).

Mr. Manish Verma, Advocate for Mr. J.S. Lalli, Addl. Standing Counsel and Mr. Ankit Midha, Junior Panel Counsel for the respondents No.1, 4 and 6.

Mr. Gagandeep Wasu, Senior Standing Counsel with Mr. Arjun Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2, 3 and 5.

ARUN PALLI, J (Oral) For, the matter in issue in this bunch of 3 petitions is identical, these are being disposed of by a common order and judgment. However, the facts are being derived from CWP No.24362 of 2023 and have been noticed in the order dated November 15, 2023, passed by this Court which is as follows:- "
  

              

  

      

 

 

 !"  #$ 

--

 

  % # & 

'   



  

 ( "

) *+!     

# "

% # &

' 

,     " 

  #   $#      # 



 "-

$   

'"

. /*'!01"

2"

. /*2!

 $            

       $    

+   "  

$#  #       #3 

 

    "

$      

  

 

 



  

"-            #   

    





$#      3 !  

     #  #               

  "4



,           )     #  

  

  

 " 5     #    $   #    3   ! #

$



                          

  ( "

*   *+  "



        ,

 6  #7   

. ! 8*6  #7   #         

    

    "9        $         

        #  $

     $              

--  : 9 $#"7        3 !   $  

 6  #7  

    

         

 "  4  

                $ , 

   



    #    

"

4 

    $          

    

5 

   # 

  

       ";   

       $ 

 )  $    

"0

.       +0 0!    4#  4

  :     0&'0         !"

(    "

$ $ #   9"

%< 


$  9"39 $    

   ( "01 9"/$ $   9"  =""  ;

  $          

   ( "

." >       #   3       )  #  )$     )      #  

     

  $    ## 

      3    ) 

     #" <  02"0

." In the meanwhile, status quo, as it exists today, qua the premises in question shall be maintained, subject, however, to the petitioner clearing all arrears within three weeks from today and shall continue to deposit the license fee, in terms of the deed of license. The respondents shall accept the amount, provided it is deposited by the petitioner within the stipulated time, without

-- prejudice to their rights and interest, and subject to further orders."

Despite repeated opportunities, no response has been filed on behalf of the respondents. However, during the course of hearing, learned counsel for the respondents submit that, since in terms of Clause 17 (e) of the Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme, 2006 (as amended on 09.01.2019), there is a remedy of revision available to the petitioner, it would be expedient that she avails the said remedy in the first instance so that the competent authority can look into every possible aspect and grievance she has raised in the petition and pass necessary orders in accordance with law. Further, he submits that till any formal order, post filing of revision by the petitioner, is passed, interim order dated November 15, 2023 (ibid) shall remain operative, provided the petitioner files the revision within two weeks from today.

                  

      

  

               

        

 



             

    

      

 

   

   

        

          

         

     

        (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 28.02.2024 deepak !    #

!   #