CWP-19558-2025 (O&M) 1 119+245 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.19558 of 2025 (O&M) Date of Decision: 25.08.2025 JAGAN NATH AND OTHERS .....Petitioners Versus STATE OF U.T. CHANDIGARH AND OTHERS ........Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DEEPAK MANCHANDA Present: Mr. Amit Bhanot, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Jaivir Singh Chandail, Advocate and Mr. Dhruv Chowfla, Advocate, for the respondents. * * * * * ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL, J. (Oral) The petitioners are seeking a direction to respondents No.2 to 4 to consider their representation dated 10.02.2025 (Annexure P-8) and further direction to the respondents to restrain them from sealing/cancelling the allotted booths of the petitioners. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that the petitioners had been allotted the booths/shops in Market Area, Sector 42-C, Chandigarh. They had been paying the lease money but later due to financial difficulty and Covid-19 pandemic, they could not pay the same. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents, however, submits that in the case of petitioners No.2 and 3, orders have been passed cancelling the lease on 15.05.2025 (Annexure P-6), which have not been challenged by them, although, the order is appealable before the Chief Administrator under Clause 27 of “Allotment/Transfer of Built up Booths in any Sector on SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.08.25 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment. CWP-19558-2025 (O&M) 2 lease/hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991”. He further submits that in the case of other petitioners, show cause notices have been issued and they need to respond thereto and final orders would be passed after considering their replies to the show cause notices issued to them. 4. After hearing learned counsel for the parties, we are of the considered view that the writ petition qua petitioners No.1 and 4 to 17 is premature, at this stage, as they have only been issued show cause notices as to why the allotment be not cancelled for want of payment. The orders of cancelling the lease have been passed against petitioners No.2 and 3 and they have the alternative remedy of preferring appeal against the said order before the Chief Administrator. 5. We, therefore, dispose of this petition with liberty to petitioners No.2 and 3 to file an appeal before the Chief Administrator and in the event of their doing so, the same would be heard and decided on merit. 6. The petition qua petitioners No.1 and 4 to 17 also stands dispose of, at this stage, as premature. They may file their response to the show cause notices, if not already filed within a period of one month from today and the competent authority after considering the response, would pass a speaking order within a period of one month thereafter. 7. All pending miscellaneous application(s) also stand disposed of. (ANUPINDER SINGH GREWAL) JUDGE (DEEPAK MANCHANDA) 25.08.2025 JUDGE sandeep Whether Speaking/Reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No SANDEEP KUMAR 2025.08.25 17:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this order/judgment.