This writ petition, filed by former booth partners fearing unauthorized possession, was dismissed. The Court found the apprehension unfounded as no proceedings under the Public Premises Act were initiated and no sealing order was passed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20632of2015(O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 28.09.2015
Santosh Madan and others
…..Petitioners
versus
The Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE S.J.VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA
Present: Mr. Shekhar Choudhary, Advocate for the petitioners
S.J. VAZIFDAR, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (Oral):
The petitioners’ only apprehension is that the
respondents may take possession of the premises allotted to them
otherwise than in accordance with law.
2. The petitioners’ case is that a booth was allotted to
Mohan Lal Ashok Kumar & Company, a partnership firm consisting of
four partners. The booth was resumed in the year 1988. Only one of
the partners, Mohan Lal challenged the same by filing an appeal
which was dismissed by an order of the Chief Administrator dated
14.03.1990. The revision-application filed by Mohan Lal was
dismissed by the Adviser on 06.03.1992.
3. The petitioners allege that they were unaware of these
proceedings. They have, therefore, filed an application for review
before the Adviser which is pending. The next date of hearing is
07.10.2015.
4. There is nothing to indicate that the respondents will
take possession of the property otherwise than in accordance with
PARKASH CHAND 2015.09.29 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
CWP-20632-2015
- 2 -
law. Admittedly, proceedings under the Public Premises (Eviction of
Unauthorised Occupants) Act, 1971 have not been adopted as yet. The
apprehension, therefore, appears to be unfounded. Indeed, even an
order of sealing would amount to a dispossession which cannot be
done otherwise than by due process of law.
4. The writ petition is accordingly disposed of.
(S.J. VAZIFDAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE
28.09.2015
parkash*
(TEJINDER SINGH DHINDSA)
JUDGE
PARKASH CHAND 2015.09.29 10:41 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Santosh Madan
The Adviser to the Administrator, U.T., Chandigarh
S.J. Vazifdar
Tejinder Singh Dhindsa
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court