Will decide pleas in Elante case in time-bound manner: UT Administration to HC

The Punjab and Haryana High Court has disposed of a petition filed by CSJ Infrastructure Private Limited against demolition/sealing of the property order after the Union Territory Administration agreed to decide the company’s statutory appeal and interim plea within fixed timelines. The real estate company operates the Elante mall in the industrial area in Chandigarh.

The Bench of Justice Anupinder Singh Grewal and Justice Amarinder Singh Grewal recorded the statement of the UT additional standing counsel Himanshu Arora that “the application for interim relief shall be decided within a period of two weeks of its receipt and the appeal shall be decided within a period of three months.”

Appearing for the petitioner, senior advocate Ankur Mittal, assisted by advocate Prashant Kapila, submitted that the UT authorities had issued a notice dated September 3 pointing out 10 building violations and granting two months to rectify them. The notice, served on September 9, was followed by substantial compliance — five violations were removed, time was sought for one, and a revised plan was submitted on September 5 for the remaining four as they were sanctionable.

Mittal contended that despite this, the Estate Office passed the impugned order dated October 24, directing demolition and sealing of the property without considering the compliance record. He pointed out that though the order granted seven days for compliance, it was served only on October 29, thereby “denying the petitioner an effective opportunity to remove the violations.” He further submitted that the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007, provide for a minimum period of two months—extendable up to six months—for removal of violations.

During the hearing, the court was informed on instructions from the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (East), that the petitioner had a statutory remedy of appeal before the appellate authority within thirty days. Taking note of this, the Bench recorded: “In view of the statement made by Additional Standing Counsel for the UT, Chandigarh-respondents, the grievance of the petitioner appears to have been substantially redressed at this stage.”