CM No. 14202 of 2005 in RA No. 191 of 2005 in C.W.P. No. 14030 of 1991 Present: Mr. Ramesh Goyal, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Kapoor, Advocate; Heard. In view of averments made in the application, it is allowed and delay of 13 days in filing the review application is condoned. R.A. No. 191 of 2005(O&M) The above said writ petition was disposed of on July 4, 2005, in terms of the order passed in CWP No. 11976 of 1991, in which the following order was passed on the above said date: “This order will dispose of CWP No. 11976 and 14030 of 1991. In these writ petitions, it was prayer of the petitioners that they being eligible, their names be included in draw of lots for allotment of 10 plots, in grain market Shahabad, District Kurukshetra. Vide interim order dated 2.8.1991, their names were ordered to be considered in draw of lots. It is an admitted fact that their names were put in draw of lots and they remained unsuccessful. In these writ petition, there is no challenge to the allotment made on the basis of draw of lots, which was convened on 13.5.1995, as such, this Court is of the opinion that the present writ petitions have become infructuous and are disposed of accordingly.” In view of the order, referred to above, both the writ petitions RA No. 191 of 2005 (O&M)_in C.W.P. No. 14030 of 1991 -2- were disposed of. Counsel for the petitioner has moved this application for review of the order dated July 4, 2005, on the ground that inadvertantly it was noticed that the names of the petitioners had been put in the draw of lots. In fact their names were not put in the draw of lots except petitioner No. 2 in CWP No. 11976 of 1991. It is also an admitted fact that after filing this writ petition, draw of lots was conducted and shops were allotted to many eligible candidates as per the policy existing then. Against draw of lots, CWP bearing No. 8238 of 1995 was dismissed on July 4, 2005. In this writ petition, there is no challenge to the draw of lots. In view of that, this application is disposed of by allowing the petitioners to lay challenge to the draw of lots, if so advised. In that event, respondent shall be entitled to raise any legal objection, as may be available to them. If any writ petition is filed, the petitioners may also pray that any vacant shop, if they are eligible, may be allotted to them as per the prevalent policy. July 04, 2008. ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge