IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 125 RAMANDEEP RANA AND ORS STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. Ms. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for respondent No. Mr. Mr. Harneet Singh Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate Mr. Raj Kaur, Advocate Mr. Abhijit Sohal, Advocate ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) CM-12013-2025 This application is for implead Residents Welfare Association Issue notice in the application. Learned counsel objection to the impleadment of Heard. The application is allowed and the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application is impleaded as respondent No.5. Memo of Parties is taken on record. CWP-11265-2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Residents Welfare Association IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-11265-2025 DATE OF DECISION: 2 RAMANDEEP RANA AND ORS Versus STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Shivam Sharma, Advocate and Ms. Shruti Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. s. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Mr. S.P. Arora, Advocate and Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for respondent No. Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with Mr. Harneet Singh, Advocate for respondent No.4. Mr. Sapan Dhir, Advocate Mr. Raj Kaur, Advocate and Mr. Abhijit Sohal, Advocate for respondent No.5. **** ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) 2025 This application is for impleading the applicant Residents Welfare Association as respondent No.5. Issue notice in the application. Learned counsels for the non-applicant objection to the impleadment of the applicant as respondent No.5. Heard. The application is allowed and the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application is impleaded as respondent No.5. arties is taken on record. 2025 Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Residents Welfare Association (RWA) has been illegally constituted by the IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: 26.08.2025 … Petitioner (s) ... Respondent(s) JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Ms. Shruti Garg, Advocate for the petitioners. s. Arundhati Kulshreshtha, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Himanshu Arora, Advocate for respondent No.3. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with respondent No.4. for respondent No.5. the applicant-Aastha Apartment respondent No.5. applicants submit that they have no applicant as respondent No.5. The application is allowed and the applicant as mentioned in paragraph 5 of the application is impleaded as respondent No.5. The Amended Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Residents has been illegally constituted by the Competent Aastha Apartment s submit that they have no The application is allowed and the applicant as mentioned in Amended Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the Residents SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.08.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-11265-2025 (O&M) -2- Authority-cum-SDM, Dera Bassi vide the impugned order dated 28.03.2025 (Annexure P-5), although the completion certificate has not been issued. The issuance of completion certificate is a sine qua non for establishment of an RWA in terms of Section 17 of the Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995. He also referred to the directions issued by this Court in CWP No.20696-2017 whereby respondent No.3 was directed to complete the project as per the sanctioned plan and thereafter obtain a completion certificate. These directions have not been complied with by respondent No.3 till date. 2. After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the considered view that the petitioners have challenged the order of the Competent Authority whereby the RWA has been constituted and the order is appealable before the Appellate Authority in terms of Section 33 of Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995. 3. At this juncture, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he wants to withdraw this petition and would prefer an appeal before the statutory authority in terms of Section 33 of Punjab Apartment Ownership Act, 1995 and the Appellate Authority be directed to consider and decide the same in a time bound manner. 4. In view of the above, the petition stands dismissed as withdrawn. However, the petitioners would be at liberty to prefer an appeal within a period of 15 days from now. In the event of the appeal being filed, the same would be considered and decided by the Appellate Authority in accordance with law by passing a speaking order after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and to the other affected persons, within a period of 3 months from now. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE 26.08.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.08.27 10:59 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document