IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.9875 of 2011 Bhagwat Singh ...Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula ...Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr.Adarsh Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. This order will dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.9875 of 2011 (Bhagwat Singh Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula) and 9984 (Sunita Vs. Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula). The facts are being taken from CWP No.9875 of 2011. The petitioner belongs to Gujjar caste, which is Backward Class Group `B'. Respondent-Haryana Urban Development Authority had made some reservation for allotment of residential plots in Sector 19, Rewari. Booking for this commenced on 18.8.2010 and closed on 18.10.2010. The applicants were required to make applications applying in reserved category to be domicile of Haryana. 3% plots of 6 marlas and 4 marlas were reserved in favour of Group `A` and Group `B'. Accordingly, 1.77% were reserved for Group `A' and 1.23% for Group `B'. Total number of plots to be allotted were 92. 6 plots, thus, were reserved for Group `A' and Group `B'. The grievance of the petitioner is that his name was put in the category of BCA instead of BCB where he was found un- successful. He has accordingly filed this writ petition to seek Civil Writ Petition No.9875 of 2011 :2: quashing of the entire draw of lots. Merely because of being considered in different category would not mean that the petitioner has been denied allotment. It was only a draw of lots where the name of the petitioner was put in reserved category of Backward Class. It is not clear if there was separate draw of lots. There may not have been a need to put the names in separate draw. I do not see any unfair action which would call for interference. It would be unfair to interfere on this ground in draw of lots as held, especially so when the successful candidates are not made party. The petitioner was considered in a reserved category, but was un-successful. In view of these facts, I am not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. Dismissed. May 31, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE