CWP-10982-2022 -1- 218 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** CWP-10982-2022 (O&M) Date of Decision: 02.07.2026 Purkha Ram .... Petitioner Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ..... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Omesh Garg, Advocate & Ms. Apoorva Kinra, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Malhotra, Additional Standing Counsel, U.T., Chandigarh for respondents No.1 & 5. Mr. Shubham Thakur, Advocate, for respondents No.2 to 4-M.C., Chandigarh. **** JASGURPREET SINGH PURI , J. (ORAL) 1. The present writ petition has been filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the impugned order dated 11.07.2016 (Annexure P-4) passed by respondent No.3 holding the petitioner to pay the violation charges of 4,09,236/- along with interest as well as the order dated 30.03.2022/27.04.2022 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.5 as an Appellate Authority in Appeal No.90 of 2016 “Purkha Ram Vs. Joint Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, M.C., Chandigarh” affirming the order dated 11.07.2016 passed by the Joint Commissioner-respondent No.3 in relation to Booth No.206, Motor Market and Commercial Complex, Mani Majra, U.T., Chandigarh. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-10982-2022 -2- was allotted a commercial site i.e. Booth No.206 on freehold basis in the Motor Market and Commercial Complex at Mani Majra, Chandigarh vide Annexure P-1 dated 06.02.1978 with the specified category of trade being other than motor trade. However, vide Annexure P-2, the petitioner was issued a show-cause notice dated 23.09.2015 by respondent No.3-Joint Commissioner, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh under Rules 14 and 10 of the Chandigarh Estate Rules, 2007 read with Section 8-A of the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952. The said show-cause notice alleged three grounds. Firstly, the petitioner had constructed a basement (under the public corridor), which was being used as a store. Secondly, the petitioner had constructed a store in the back portion by extending the ventilator and RCC and had provided a staircase to the store and thirdly, the site was being used for motor spare parts trade whereas as per the allotment letter, the site had been allotted for “other than motor trade”. The petitioner replied to the aforesaid show-cause notice and the same has been appended with the present petition as Annexure P-3. Thereafter, vide impugned order dated 13.06.2016 (Annexure P-4), learned Joint Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh imposed a penalty in the nature of charges amounting to 4,09,236/- for alleged violation/misuse. The petitioner preferred an appeal vide Annexure P-5 before learned Appellate Authority i.e. the Chief Administrator. U.T., Chandigarh. The appeal was considered and dismissed by the Appellate Authority vide order dated 30.03.2022 (Annexure P-6). 3. Learned counsel further submitted that the petitioner had fully justified to the respondents with regard to the norms on the basis of which the aforesaid show-cause notice was issued. With respect to the first two BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-10982-2022 -3- alleged violations which are pertaining to construction of basement and store, the petitioner stated that he was willing and ready to demolish the same within a reasonable time-frame. So far as the third alleged violation is concerned, the petitioner replied to the show-cause notice that although the allotment letter specified that the site was allotted for “other than motor trade”, but since the location of the site is in the motor market, the petitioner was dealing with the business of spare parts. He therefore sought permission from the respondents, in his reply to the show-cause notice, to commence the business of spare parts and also submitted that such business would not affect the general public or passersby. He also submitted that once the petitioner has voluntarily so stated that he will demolish the constructional violations, if any and also sought permission to carry on the business pertaining to spare parts, no such penalty ought to have been imposed upon him. He further submitted that the impugned orders imposing penalty fail to show any calculation or basis for the amount levied and on that ground too the impugned orders are liable to be set aside. 4. On the other hand, Mr. Shubham Thakur, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondents No.2 & 4-Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh, while referring to the reply, submitted that rather at the time when the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner, he had admitted that he is doing the business of spare parts connecting to the motor trade. However, the allotment was made wherein it was specified that it has to be other than motor trade and considering the admitted position of violation, the penalty was required to have been imposed and the same was rightly imposed upon the petitioner. So far as two other violations are concerned, he submitted that the petitioner removed the constructional violations only after BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-10982-2022 -4- a period of 198 days and therefore, the penalty was required to have been imposed and the same is reflected in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority in this regard. 5. Learned counsel for respondents No.2 & 4 further submitted that so far as the calculation aspect is concerned, the penalty has been imposed as per the calculation which has been annexed with the written statement/reply filed by the respondent as Annexure R-6 (Colly.) and the same is so appended at Page No.66 of the Paperbook. He further submitted that after the respondents filed their reply, the petitioner did not file any rejoinder or replication to the reply and in this way, the entire calculation has so been submitted along with the reply has been admitted by the petitioner and on that ground, the order cannot be set aside. 6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. 7. The terms and conditions of the allotment made to the petitioner, which has been attached with the present petition as Annexure P- 1, the relevant portion of the same is reproduced as under:- “2. As a result of draw held on 28.09.70 a Commercial Site details whereof are given below is allotted to you on free- hold basis on the terms and conditions mentioned hereinafter: Location No. of Site Area in Sq. Yds, and dimensions Cost per sq. yard Cost excluding the interest TRADE --------------------------------------------------------------------------- Motor Market & Commercial Complex at Manimajra Booth 206 25.0P 8’-3’x27’- 4-1/2” Rs.500/- Rs.12545/- Other than motor trade -----------------------------------------------------------------------------” 8. A perusal of the aforesaid shows that, at the time the allotment BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-10982-2022 -5- was made to the petitioner, it was specifically provided that the trade would be “other than motor trade,” which is admitted and not denied by the petitioner. 9. When the show-cause notice was issued to the petitioner vide Annexure P-2, the grounds mentioned therein are reproduced below:— “And whereas it has been brought into the notice of the undersigned that you have altered the building without prior permission of the Chief Administrator, U.T. Chandigarh in the following manner:- 1. Basement measuring 8'-3" x 27'-4½" (under the public corridor) exists which is being used as store. 2. Store measuring 8'-3" X 7'-0" constructed in the back portion by extending the ventilator and RCC and the stair case has also been provided to the store. 3. By using the site for motor spare part, whereas, as per the allotment letter the site was allotted for "other than motor trade.” 10. When the petitioner filed his reply to the show-cause notice, he admitted that he was conducting a spare-parts business and also sought permission to continue that business. The relevant portion of the petitioner’s reply is reproduced below:- “…...As regards the objection raised at serial no. 3 i.e. motor parts, it is most respectfully submitted that this complex is entirely the Motor Market and Commercial Complex resulting is not feasible to run the business in any other trade instead of spare parts. Sir, the sale of spare parts does not effect the General Public and passers by. Hence to run the business of spare parts may kindly be allowed to the undersigned. If, there is some requisite fee to change the business trade then the same may kindly be charged from me and the trade may be changed from the specific trade whatsoever mentioned in the allotment letter to the spare parts trade….” 11. It is therefore clear that the petitioner has not denied that he has BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-10982-2022 -6- violated the condition that the site was to be used for “other than motor trade”. So far as the prayer of the petitioner in his reply to the show-cause notice for permission to change the nature of the trade is concerned, the said request could not be accepted because the petitioner never filed any such application to the respondents seeking a change of trade. This was one of the primary reasons for imposing the penalty upon the petitioner because he had admittedly been conducting a business in violation of the terms and conditions of the allotment. 12. So far as the remaining two allegations relating to construction of the basement and store in violation of the approved building plan is concerned, it has also come on record, which has been so discussed in detail in the impugned order passed by the Appellate Authority that the petitioner had removed the violation after a period of 198 days. Therefore, all the grounds on the basis of which the show-cause notice was issued were proved and on the basis of these violations, penalty of an amount of 4,09,236/- has been imposed by learned Joint Commissioner-cum-Estate Officer, Municipal Corporation, Chandigarh vide order dated 11.07.2016 which has also been upheld by the Appellant Authority vide order dated 30.03.2022/27.04.2022 (Annexure P-6). 13. Considering the aforesaid factual aspect with regard to the admission of violations by the petitioner, we are of the considered view that the imposition of penalty of an amount of 4,09,236/- cannot be interfered with by this Court in its extraordinary jurisdiction under Article 226 of the Constitution of India. So far as the calculation aspect is concerned, the calculations have already been appended by the respondents in their reply by giving all the details. The same has not been countered by the petitioner BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-10982-2022 -7- by filing any kind counter affidavit or an application etc. 14. In view of the above, we do not find any merit in the present petition and the same is hereby dismissed. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE 02.07.2026 (SANJIV BERRY) Bhumika JUDGE 1. Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No 2. Whether reportable: Yes/No BHUMIKA BHATI 2026.07.09 16:37 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh