IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 130 CWP-20754-2026 Date of Decision:- 16.07.2026 MUKESH KUMAR GUPTA ....Petitioner(s) Versus CHIEF ADMINISTRATOR UT CHANDIGARH AND ANR ...Respondent(s) CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASGURPREET SINGH PURI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJIV BERRY Present: Mr. Puneet Bali, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Animesh Sharma, Advocate, Ms. Ishita Khanna, Advocate, Mr. Gagandeep Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sumeet Jain, Additional Standing counsel for respondent No.1. Mr. Rakesh Sobti, Additional Standing counsel Mr. Ujwal Mittal, Jr. Panel counsel for respondent No.2. * * * * JASGURPREET SINGH PURI, J. (Oral) 1. The present petition has been filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India inter alia seeking directions to respondent- authorities to decide the appeal as well as interim application for de-sealing dated 18.06.2026 (Annexure P-1), preferred against the impugned order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-2) passed by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate (Central), Chandigarh within a time bound period. 2. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner submitted that the premises of the petitioner had been sealed on the allegation of various violations relating to the construction of a wall, which was in the nature of a partition wall and which, according to the respondent-Estate Officer, was not SANDAL SHARMA 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20754-2026 -2- in accordance with law. He further submitted that even otherwise no specific notice with regard to the aforesaid alleged violation had ever been issued to the petitioner. He further submitted that despite various requests being made to respondent No.1-Appellate Authority to hear the appeal, which has been filed against the impugned sealing order, the Appellate Authority has not considered the request of the petitioner and now the appeal is pending for 21.07.2026. 3. Learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner further submitted that grave prejudice will be caused to the petitioner as it is the business of the petitioner which has been affected by the action of the respondents, firstly, by not issuing any notice specifying the allegations on the basis of which sealing was done and thereafter by non-hearing of the appeal despite repeated requests made by learned counsel for the petitioner. He further submitted that the petitioner is also ready and willing to demolish the partition wall in case there is any violation of law and the same can be done under the supervision of the concerned Estate Officer. He also submitted that he has no objection in case the owner of the premises is associated with the process of demolition of the wall in order to ensure safety of the building. 4. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.1-Appellate Authority, on instructions, submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner against the impugned sealing order is fixed for 21.07.2026. He further submitted that subject to the petitioner or his counsel appearing on the said date, the appeal shall be decided as expeditiously as possible in accordance with law. 5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No.2 SANDAL SHARMA 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20754-2026 -3- submitted that it is not correct that proper notice was not given to the petitioner, as notice was issued to the petitioner in accordance with law and therefore the petitioner cannot raise such grievance in this regard. He further submitted that once the appeal filed by the petitioner is pending before the Appellate Authority, this Court may not entertain the present petition in exercise of its jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. 6. We have heard learned counsels for the parties. 7. Vide order dated 15.04.2026 (Annexure P-2), the premises of the petitioner was sealed. The petitioner is a tenant in the said premises. The dispute pertains to a wall which is alleged to have been constructed in violation of law. Be that as it may, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent No. 1, on instructions, has specifically submitted that the appeal filed by the petitioner is fixed for hearing on 21.07.2026 and that subject to the appearance of the petitioner or his counsel on the said date, the appeal shall be decided in accordance with law as expeditiously as possible. 8. In our considered view, it would be just and proper if the appeal preferred by the petitioner is decided in accordance with law on the date already fixed i.e. 21.07.2026 or on any other convenient date, but not later than two weeks thereafter, after affording an adequate opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. The petitioner is directed to appear before respondent No. 1-Appellate Authority on 21.07.2026. The Appellate Authority shall decide the appeal on its own merits and strictly in accordance with law. While doing so, it shall also consider the submission made by learned Senior Counsel for the petitioner regarding demolition of the partition wall by the SANDAL SHARMA 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment CWP-20754-2026 -4- petitioner himself under the supervision of the Estate Officer and in the presence of the owner of the premises so as to ensure the structural safety of the building. The Appellate Authority shall also consider all the grounds raised by the petitioner in the appeal independently. 9. We make it clear that this Court has not observed anything on the merits of the case and by way of this order has only directed the Appellate Authority to decide the appeal in accordance with law on its own merits. 10. With aforesaid directions, petition stands disposed of. (JASGURPREET SINGH PURI) JUDGE (SANJIV BERRY) JUDGE 16.07.2026 S.Sharma i) Whether speaking/reasoned? Yes/No ii) Whether reportable? Yes/No SANDAL SHARMA 2026.07.17 14:49 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment