JUDGMENT Mr. M.M. Kumar, J.: - The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 30.5.2011 rendered in CWP No. 9778 of 2011 by the learned Single Judge of this Court. The aforesaid order reads as under :- “3. The petitioner is placing reliance on an order passed by the civil court to impugn the subsequent order passed by the respondents. As per the counsel, the petitioner has also a remedy of appeal against the said order. The submission that the petitioner would be dispossessed would not be a reason enough to invoke writ jurisdiction. The petitioner has to either go to the civil court or file an appeal. Relegated to his alternative remedy of either filing appeal or approaching the civil court. The writ petition is dismissed.” 2. Mr. Namit Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant states that there is no remedy of appeal provided under the Rules known as “Allotment / Transfer of Built up Booths in Any Sector on Lease / Hire Purchase Basis in Chandigarh Rules, 1991” (for brevity ‘the Rules’). Our attention has been drawn to Rule 27 of the Rules, which deals with appellate jurisdiction and the same reads as under :- “27. The order passed by the competent authority cancelling the lease of booth shall be appealable to the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh within 30 days from the date of issue of the order. A revision against the order passed by Chief Administrator in appeal shall lie to the Administrator of the Union Territory of Chandigarh, within 30 days from the issue of the order.” 3. A perusal of the aforesaid Rules would show that an appeal to the Chief Administrator, Chandigarh within 30 days from the date of issue of the order under Rule 27 of the Rules would be competent only against an order passed by the competent authority cancelling the lease of booth. Accordingly, the appellant would be without any remedy of appeal. In so far as the remedy of Civil Court is concerned there is already a decree passed by the Civil Court dated 30.10.2010 (P-6). Accordingly, it has been urged that the learned Single Judge does not take into consideration the aforesaid facts while relegating the appellant-petitioner to the remedy of appeal or civil court. 4. Ms. In so far as the remedy of Civil Court is concerned there is already a decree passed by the Civil Court dated 30.10.2010 (P-6). Accordingly, it has been urged that the learned Single Judge does not take into consideration the aforesaid facts while relegating the appellant-petitioner to the remedy of appeal or civil court. 4. Ms. Lisa Gill, learned counsel for the respondents has stated that the writ petition was dismissed at the initial stage without any notice of motion and, therefore, no reply could be filed. 5. Be that as it may, the order passed by the learned Single Judge does not stand judicial scrutiny and, thus, is liable to be set aside because there is no remedy of appeal and the remedy of civil court has already been exhausted. 6. In view of the above, the impugned order dated 30.5.2011 is set aside. The matter is remanded back to the learned Single Judge for deciding the controversy on merit. Written statement, if any, be filed before the learned Single Judge within two months from today. ------------