IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.2875 of 2009 Date of decision: February 25, 2009. Yadav Samaj Sabha, Kurukshetra ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Haryana & Ors. ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri Shamsher Singh Dinapur, Advocate for the petitioner. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner – Sabha seeks quashing of the resolution passed by the Kurukshetra Development Board on 2.7.2002 whereby it has been denied allotment of land for construction of Dharamshala. The petitioner's grievance is that while allotment of site has been denied to it on the ground that there is a continuous depletion of the fair area, the information received by the petitioner-Sabha under the Right to Information Act reveals that even after rejecting the petitioner's claim, fresh allotments have been made in favour of several applicants and some more allotments are in the pipeline. The petitioner's further grievance is that even at the time of making subsequent allotments, its claim has not been considered nor there is likelihood of a fresh consideration. The petitioner is stated to have highlighted the discriminatory treatment meted out to it by way of legal notice dated 12.4.2007 (Annexure P-10) but there is no response thereto. Having heard Learned Counsel for the Petitioner-Sabha at some length and keeping the limited scope of interference and parameters for exercising the powers of judicial review, I am of the considered view that the resolution passed by the Board in its 73rd meeting dated 3.7.2002 (Annexure P-4) whereby it declined to allot the site for Dharamshala on the ground that such allotments were causing depletion of the fair area, warrants no interference by this Court. At the same time, if the respondent-Board itself has reconsidered the said decision and has deviated from it while making fresh allotments thereafter, it appears that the petitioner's claim also ought to have been considered. Since no notice has been issued to the respondent-Board and it has not been heard, this Court is not in a position to opine as to whether or not the petitioner's claim was re-considered. Consequently and without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioner's claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Kurukshetra Development Board to consider the petitioner's claim as contained in the legal notice dated 12.2.2007 (Annexure P-10) and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order, in accordance with law and as per its policy. The needful shall be done within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. February 25, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge