Punjab-Haryana High Court
Zabih Tailors vs The Union Territory, Chandigarh & Ors on 17 January, 2025
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007002-DB
CWP-2023-2017 (O&M)
and connected matters -1-
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Reserved on: 06.08.2024
Pronounced on: 17.01.2025
1. CWP-2023-2017 (O&M)
Zabih Tailors .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
2. CWP-2636-2017 (O&M)
M/s Charan Dass and Co. .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
3. CWP-2258-2017 (O&M)
M/s. Shimla Book House .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
4. CWP-2259-2017 (O&M)
M/S Thapar Trading Company and another .... Petitioners
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
5. CWP-2260-2017 (O&M)
Rupinder Singh Cheema .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
6. CWP-2261-2017 (O&M)
Gurdev Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
1 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:50:03 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007002-DB
CWP-2023-2017 (O&M)
and connected matters -2-
7. CWP-2264-2017 (O&M)
M/s New Sindhi Sweets .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
8. CWP-2393-2017 (O&M)
Harkesh Kathuria and others .... Petitioners
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
9. CWP-2817-2017 (O&M)
Swaran Kanta Jain (since deceased) through her legal heirs/legal
representatives .... Petitioner
Vs.
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
10. CWP-3254-2017 (O&M)
M/s Melody House .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
11. CWP-2262-2017 (O&M)
Sageer Ahmed .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
12. CWP-2263-2017 (O&M)
Gurpinder Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
13. CWP-2322-2017 (O&M)
M/s Esquire Boutique .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
2 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007002-DB
CWP-2023-2017 (O&M)
and connected matters -3-
14. CWP-2369-2017 (O&M)
Iqbal Singh .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
15. CWP-2521-2017 (O&M)
M/s Capital Investment Service Centre .... Petitioner
Vs.
The Union Territory, Chandigarh and others .... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate with
Mr. Imran Ali, Advocate,
Ms. Amandeep Kaur, Advocate,
Mohammad Sartaj Khan, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWPs-2023, 2258, 2260 to 2264,
2369 of 2017, and CM-18561-2022);
Mr. Inderjit Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner(s)
(in CWPs-2521, 2636 and 3254-2017);
Mr. Naveen S. Bhardwaj, Advocate and
Mr. Shivam Sachdeva, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-2259-2017);
Mr. Shireesh Gupta, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) (in CWP-2393-2017);
Ms. Nitika Sharma, Advocate,
for the petitioner(s) ( in CWP-2817-2018);
Mr. Amit Jhanji, Senior Standing counsel with
Mr. Jaivir Chandail, Additional Standing counsel
for the respondent-U.T. Chandigarh.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. A.S.Talwar, Advocate, and
Mr. A.S.Rawaley, Advocate
for respondent No.4 (in CWP-2023-2017).
****
3 of 5
::: Downloaded on - 18-01-2025 15:50:04 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007002-DB
CWP-2023-2017 (O&M)
and connected matters -4-
ARUN PALLI, J.
Vide this order and judgment, we decide a bunch of 15
petitions, assailing the common order dated 27.01.2017, passed by the Sub
Divisional Magistrate (Central), vide which, SCO Nos.89-90-91, Sector 17-
D, Chandigarh, was ordered to be sealed, owing to building
violations/deviations. However, the facts are being derived from CWP
No.2023-2017.
A brief narration of facts, that have led the parties to the current
stage, shall be imperative.
Concededly, vide order dated 07.12.1999, the demised premises
was resumed by the Estate Officer, U.T., Chandigarh, on account of multiple
building violations/deviations. And, the appeals preferred against the said
order were dismissed by the Appellate Authority (Chief Administrator), on
26.08.2003. Even the revision filed against those orders was dismissed by
the Advisor to the Administrator on 27.04.2005, for the ground floor of the
premises had been partitioned into 12 independent units and a show window
was converted into a sale booth. Further, CWP-15471-2005 (M/s Roxy Hair
Dresser Vs. Chandigarh Administration), preferred by one of the occupants
of the subject property, against those orders, was dismissed by a Coordinate
Bench of this Court, on 27.09.2005. And, so was the fate of the SLP (Civil)
12304-12305 of 2007, filed against the said decision, which was dismissed
by the Supreme Court, on merits as also on account of delay, on 03.01.2008.
Thus, it is not disputed that the order of resumption had since attained
finality. Subsequently, however, vide impugned order dated 27.01.2017
(ibid), the demised premises was sealed owing to continuous building
violations/deviations.
The records show that a Coordinate Bench, vide order dated
02.02.2017, while issuing notice of motion, had stayed the operation of the
impugned order dated 27.01.2017, and the premises was ordered to be de-
sealed forthwith. And, was accordingly de-sealed on 04.02.2017.
Upon being pointedly asked, as to under which provision, once
the order of resumption was upheld right up to the Supreme Court, the
authorities could order sealing of the premises, learned Senior Standing
4 of 5
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:007002-DB
CWP-2023-2017 (O&M)
and connected matters -5-
counsel could not refer to any such provision. Thus, he, as always, fairly
submitted that the impugned order being indefensible, be deemed to have
been recalled/withdrawn. And, the authorities, if so advised, would proceed
with the matter, in accordance with law.
That being so, learned counsel for the petitioners submitted that
nothing substantive survived in the petitions, and the same be disposed of, in
terms of the statement made by learned Senior Standing counsel for the
Chandigarh Administration.
In the wake of the position sketched out above, we are not
required to delve any further into the matter. Accordingly, the petitions are
disposed of, in terms of the statements made by learned counsel for the
parties.
Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
17.01.2025
AK Sharma Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No
Whether reportable : Yes/No
5 of 5
