High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh
Case Law Search
Surinder Dhawan v. Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandi - CWP-12299-2006  RD-P&H 5586 (17 August 2006)
CWP NO.12299 of 2006
DATE OF DECISION: August 22, 2006
Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh and others .....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA
PRESENT: Shri Rajiv Kataria, Advocate for the petitioner.
The petitioner has challenged the order dated April 5, 2006 passed by the Advisor to the Administrator, UT, Chandigarh (Annexure P.6). Vide the aforesaid order, the controversy qua the resumption of the site in question on account of misuser of the same has been remanded back to the Chief Administrator for passing an appropriate order. The Revisional Authority has noticed that resumption had been ordered on account of residential premises being used for dental clinic and clinical laboratory, whereas, the misuser qua the clinic had been stopped, inasmuch as, the aforesaid user for clinic was not for an area more than 25% of covered area and as such was permissible. It is noticed by the revisional authority that the clinical laboratory was still being run in the premises in question. It is in these
circumstances that the matter was remanded back to the Chief Administrator for examining the factual position.
Shri Rajiv Kataria, the learned counsel appearing for the petitioner has argued that the order dated April 5, 2006 has been passed by the revisional authority without any jurisdiction and in any case in a revision petition which was barred by limitation and neither there was any power to condone the delay nor any such delay had been condoned by the revisional authority on facts, it has been argued by the learned counsel that the clinical laboratory being run in the premises in question was a part and parcel of the dental clinic.
We have duly considered the aforesaid arguments of the learned counsel but find ourselves unable to agree with the same.
The revisional authority had exercised its powers of revision noticing the factual position at the site. Even during the course of arguments before us, it has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the petitioner that clinical laboratory was being run in the residential premises, although it is maintained that the aforesaid clinical laboratory was a part of the dental clinic.
However, we find ourselves unable to accept the said contention. A dental clinic in an area which is not more than 25% of the covered area is permissible to be run by a doctor who also resides in the said premises, whereas, no clinical laboratory can be run in such a residential premises. We also take note of the fact that the clinical laboratory is independently named as M/s. SP Clinical Lab.
The said Clinical Lab. is not a part of dental clinic, being run by a doctor who
is residing in the said premises. In any case, we are satisfied that no case for interference in the extra-ordinary jurisdiction of this Court is made out.
August 22, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.