HC declines to intervene in club demolition dispute

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has refused to entertain a writ petition filed by M/s Commando Caterers Pvt Ltd against the Chandigarh Administration’s order dated November 14 directing removal and dismantling of alleged building violations in the Chandigarh Club.

The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Deepak Manchanda held that the matter was appealable under the provisions of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007. The Bench made it clear that the statutory appellate mechanism must be invoked before seeking relief from the High Court.

Dismissing the petition, the Bench cited the settled principle that writ jurisdiction was ordinarily not exercised when an effective alternative remedy was in existence. The Bench also referred to a Supreme Court decision before observing that discretionary writ jurisdiction was not to be invoked except in exceptional contingencies such as violation of fundamental rights, breach of natural justice, total lack of jurisdiction or challenge to the vires of a statute.

The Bench, during the course of hearing, was told that the petitioner was approaching the court against the arbitrary and illegal order dated November 14 passed by UT Sub Divisional Magistrate (Central) and subsequent order passed the next day by the District Magistrate for demolition drive to be carried out.

It was contended that legally permissible, temporary structure erected by the petitioner with due permission was ordered to be demolished without giving “requisite period of 60 days under the statutory provisions and rules”

“The impugned orders are aimed at defeating the petitioner’s rights to file an appeal under the prevalent rules and Act. A 30-day period to file an appeal against the impugned order dated November 10 – released on November 14 – is available to the petitioner. But the teething hurry shown by the official respondents in demolishing the structure of the petitioner over a weekend reflects of malice, mala fide and amounts to an abuse of executive authority, which has compelled the petitioner to invoke the jurisdiction of this court,” it was added.

Appearing on UT’s behalf, senior standing counsel and senior advocate Amit Jhanji submitted that the order was passed strictly in accordance with law. Senior counsel appearing for Chandigarh Club Anand Chhibbar submitted that the petitioner violated the licence terms granted by the club, due to which the administration had declined renewal of the club’s lease.

After hearing all sides, the Bench held that the petitioner must exhaust the statutory appellate remedy rather than invoke writ jurisdiction at the initial stage. Concluding the proceedings, the court dismissed the petition and granted liberty to the petitioner to file an appeal, with a direction that such an appeal, if filed, be considered and decided in accordance with law.