IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 147 DEVICA CHEMICAL AND OTHERS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.03.2025 P-18) whereby his appeal against the order of the Tribunal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed on account of delay although sufficient cause had been made f aware of the order passed by the respondents and he promptly filed the app when he learnt about the order. The appeal could not be filed earlier partly due to the Covid-19 pandemi given to the petitioner. 2. Heard. 3. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 04.01.2018 (Annexure P-11) IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-16804-2025 DATE OF DECISION: DEVICA CHEMICAL AND OTHERS Versus STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Rajinder Goyal, Advocate for Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana. ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (ORAL) The petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.03.2025 whereby his appeal against the order of the Tribunal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed on account of delay although sufficient cause had been made for condoning the delay. The petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the respondents and he promptly filed the app about the order. The appeal could not be filed earlier partly due to 19 pandemic as well and therefore, the benefit thereof ought to be given to the petitioner. Heard. The petitioner had challenged the order dated 04.01.2018 11) by preferring an appeal before the Tribunal. He also preferred IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 2025 DATE OF DECISION: 23.07.2025 … Petitioner (s) ... Respondent(s) HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Mr. Yagsimant Attri, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana. The petitioner has impugned the order dated 18.03.2025 (Annexure whereby his appeal against the order of the Tribunal has been dismissed. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed on account of delay although or condoning the delay. The petitioner was not aware of the order passed by the respondents and he promptly filed the appeal about the order. The appeal could not be filed earlier partly due to and therefore, the benefit thereof ought to be The petitioner had challenged the order dated 04.01.2018 by preferring an appeal before the Tribunal. He also preferred (Annexure Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the appeal preferred by the petitioner has been erroneously dismissed on account of delay although or condoning the delay. The petitioner was not al about the order. The appeal could not be filed earlier partly due to and therefore, the benefit thereof ought to be The petitioner had challenged the order dated 04.01.2018 SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.24 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document CWP-16804-2025 an application for condonation of delay of 1421 days in Tribunal, after perusing the record afforded ample opportunity also asked to restore the building to the original state. The postal receipt perused by the Tribunal registered post had been d 4. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal on account of 5. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit stands dismissed. 23.07.2025 SwarnjitS Whether speaking/reasoned Whether reportable 2025 an application for condonation of delay of 1421 days in after perusing the record, had noticed that the petitioner had been afforded ample opportunity to stop construction on the controlled area and was also asked to restore the building to the original state. The postal receipt by the Tribunal which indicated that the impugned order sent through registered post had been duly acknowledged. In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal on account of Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit stands (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes / No Whether reportable : Yes / No -2- an application for condonation of delay of 1421 days in filing the appeal. The had noticed that the petitioner had been stop construction on the controlled area and was also asked to restore the building to the original state. The postal receipt was also which indicated that the impugned order sent through In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order of the Tribunal dismissing the appeal on account of the delay of 1421 days. Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit stands (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) JUDGE Yes / No Yes / No filing the appeal. The had noticed that the petitioner had been stop construction on the controlled area and was was also which indicated that the impugned order sent through In view of the above, we do not find any illegality in the order of Consequently, the petition being devoid of any merit stands SWARNJIT SINGH 2025.07.24 13:05 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document