FIAZ AHMAD ANJUM JANDRAN, J. Through instant Intra Court Appeal, appellants impugn order dated 12.10.2012, passed by the learned Single Judge-in-Chambers, whereby writ petition No.3295 of 2012 filed by the respondent was allowed in following terms:- "In this view of the matter , instant petition is allowed, the respondent C.D.A Authorities are directed to accord permission to the petitioner to use the vacant space in front of its premises for parking purposes.
4. It is made clear that no permanent right shall be accrued in favour of petitioner and whenever C.D.A would commence some development work of the beautification of the area, petitioner shall be under obligation to vacate the space. The C.D.A may take undertaking from the petitioner in this regard."
2. Relevant and essential facts for the disposal of instant appeal are that respondent filed the subject writ petition with the prayer to allow it to use vacant space exists in front of its office for parkin g purposes alike other adjacent offices. The representative of appellants/C.D.A, on court notice, entered appearan ce and conceded the stance of the respondent that similarly placed establishment are allowed to use the vacant space for the purpose of parking.
Upon this, the learned Single Judge-in- Chambers allowed the petition in terms noted in Para-1 above, being assailed through instant appeal on the ground that the direction so made is not inconsonance with the Capital Development Authority Ordinance, 1960 and regulations made thereunder .
3. Heard, record perused.
4. It is a manifest that the concession afforded to the respondent, in no way, can be termed as a perpetual and vested right created in its favour pursuant to the impugned judgment. The direction so made, as a matter of fact, was in consequence of the statement made by the representative of the appellants whereby he acknowledged that the relief sought had been granted to other establishments situated in the same area.
5. It is also noticed that by the said direction no right has been accrued in favour of the respondent. It is not the case of the appellants/C.D.A that the respondent is creating any hindrance or obstruction in carrying out some development work of the beautification. Rather any such work has not yet been commenced.
6. The learned Single judge-in-chambers bound the respondent to furnish undertaking to vacate the space as and when required by the appellants/C.D.A. It is thus obvious that no prejudice has been caused to the appellants/C.D.A. It is made clear that the permission accorded to the respondent is explicit and only for the use of "vacant space". In no way, it amounts to lend permission either to disturb the greenery , cut the trees or cause nuisance to the existing atmosphere/plantation.
7. In addition to above, the appellants have not been able to highlight contravention of any law, rule or regulation.
Hence, no further proceedings in instant appeal are called for . Disposed of in the above terms.