Sanjay Kishan Kaul, C.J. - (1.) ADMIT . Learned Senior Standing Counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh/respondents No. 1 and 2 accepts notice.
(2.) ON request of learned counsels for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final disposal. The appellant before us laid a challenge to the validity of the definition of 'Non Resident Indian ' to the extent it required the parents/grand -parents of such a person to own immovable property in his/her name in Chandigarh for the last at least five years. The appellant claims that she is a Canadian citizen and her grand -father had retired as an Under Secretary in the year 1994 and he resided in a government house from 1965 to 1984 and again shifted to another government accommodation provided by the Chandigarh Administration from 1984 to 1994. The third set of government accommodation is pertaining to an allotment made to the father of the appellant which he continued to occupy till December, 2003, whereafter her father started living in the house of her grand -father in Mohali. The appellant passed as a regular student from Mohali.
(3.) THE learned Single Judge found in favour of the appellant and struck down the impugned clause as impracticable, illegal, illogical and, thus, the appellant succeeded. The order has not been assailed by the respondent authorities.;