M.M.Kumar, J.

1. After availing statutory remedies of appeal and revision and various rounds of litigation before the statutory departmental authorities, the petitioner Company has filed the instant petition under Article 226 of the Constitution challenging orders dated 23.5.2008 (P-13 & P-14), 26.5.2007 (P- 15), 5.6.2008 (P-16) and 25.6.2008 (P-14/A). A further prayer has been made for commanding the revisional authority to pass orders granting extension of time for completing construction at site in question or in the alternative to quash the offending portion of order dated 2.5.2007 (P-3) passed by the revisional authority fixing one year period for completion of construction of the building. Still further another prayer has been made for issuance of direction to decide the appeal and application for stay filed by the petitioner Company.

2. Brief facts of the case are that in pursuance to an auction held on 1.8.1985, Hotel Site No. 10, Sector 17, Chandigarh (for brevity, `the site), was allotted in favour of the petitioner Company on lease hold basis for a period of 99 years, vide allotment letter dated 23.1.1986. As per conditions of the allotment letter, 75% of the balance price was to be paid in three equal annual instalments alongwith interest @ 7% per annum. The construction of the building was to be accomplished within three years from the date of auction. The possession of the site was handed over to the petitioner Company on 24.1.1986. On 25.1.1986, a lease deed was also executed between the parties. The petitioner Company could not pay the instalments and ground rent within the stipulated time. On 13.12.2001, the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 after issuance of show cause notice etc. passed orders of cancellation of the lease of the site. The appeal preferred by the petitioner Company was dismissed by the Chief Administrator-cum-Appellate Authority-respondent No. 2 on 7.5.2004.

3. Feeling aggrieved, the petitioner Company filed a revision petition before the Advisor to the Administrator-respondent No. 1, which was allowed vide order dated 8.12.2004 (P-1). The revisional authority-respondent No. 1 restored the site subject to the condition that the petitioner Company would deposit the outstanding amount within one month of the supply of account statement by the Estate Officer failing which the order of the Chief Administrator was to spring back in operation. It was also directed to accept two demand drafts of Rs. 80,00,000/-, which were presented by the petitioner Company during the course of revision petition. Since the issue of non- construction/non-completion of the building was not covered in the order dated 8.12.2004 (P-1), the petitioner Company preferred a review application before respondent No. 1, which was dismissed.

4. On 5.9.2005, the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 issued a notice under Rule 20 of the Chandigarh Lease Hold of Site and Building Rules, 1973 (for brevity, `the Rules). According to the notice the petitioner Company was to show cause why the lease of the plot be not cancelled by pleading the ground that the building has not been completed within three years from the date of auction. The petitioner Company sought extension of time uptil 31.3.2006 enabling it to complete the construction. For the purpose of grant of extension, the Estate Officer-respondent No. 3 raised a demand of Rs. 1.37 crore as extension fee on 24.10.2005, which was challenged by the petitioner Company by filing an appeal. During the pendency of appeal, the Estate Officer again resumed the site, vide order dated 15.2.2006 (P-1/A). The petitioner Company then filed yet another appeal against the order dated 15.2.2006, which was dismissed by the Chief Administrator-respondent No. 2 on 7.3.2007 (P-2).

5. Challenging order dated 7.3.2007 (P-2), the petitioner company preferred a revision petition before the Advisor-respondent No. 1, which was allowed vide order dated 2.5.2007 (P-3). The site was restored back subject