- (1.) The petitioners have challenged an order dated 09.07.1992 passed by respondent No. 4 - the Estate Officer under the Capital of Punjab (Development and Regulation) Act, 1952 (in short the Act) holding that the petitioners have willfully committed defaults in respect of the showroom allotted to them and, therefore, ordering the resumption of the same and the forfeiture of 10 per cent of the total amount of premium paid in respect thereof. The petitioners have also challenged an order dated 06.10.1998 passed by the Chief Administrator dismissing their appeal. The petitioners have further challenged the order of the Advisor dated 01.09.1999 passed in revision whereby it was ordered that the order of resumption would stand annulled in the event of the petitioners succeeding in the eviction proceedings instituted by them against the occupier i.e. the State Bank of Patiala and obtaining possession of the premises within four months. It was the petitioners' act of letting out the premises to the State Bank of Patiala which was held to be a violation of the terms and conditions of allotment. Finally, the petitioners have challenged an order dated 29.12.1999 passed by the Advisor dismissing their application for review of the order dated 01.09.1999.
(2.) In view of what transpired after the filing of this petition, it is not necessary to deal with the merits of the case and the facts that have led to the petition being filed.
(3.) The following interim order dated 18.07.2002 was passed in this petition:- "Attention of the Court was invited to the averments made in paragraph 7 of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents Nos. 1 to 4. A perusal thereof reveals that although it is permissible to apply for change of use, it is also open for the authorities to permit change of use after paying charges by the petitioners, yet the petitioners have failed to take any steps in accordance with law. The records available in Court, however, reveal that the petitioner applied for change of use on 27.08.1999 and also on 16.04.2000. However, the said applications have not yet been decided by the Chandigarh Administration. In the facts and circumstances of this case, it would be just and appropriate to direct the Chandigarh Administration to decide the applications filed by the petitioners seeking change of use within four weeks from today. The decision of the Chandigarh Administration of the applications will be without prejudice to the controversy in the present writ petition. It is further clarified that in case the Chandigarh Administration permits change of use on payment/charges, the petitioner may deposit such payment/charges within 4 weeks thereafter, which again will be without prejudice to the present petition. If the petitioner fails to deposit the payment/charges within 4 weeks, it will be presumed that the order of change of use is not acceptable to the petitioners. To come up for further hearing on 23.09.2002. Copy of the order be furnished to the counsel for the parties dasti on payment of usual charges.";