LPA No.1849 of 2011 (O&M) -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH LPA No.1849 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 03.10.2011 Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula and others ..... Appellants Versus Tarsem Lal and others ..... Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA Present: Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate, for the appellants. Mr. S.P. Khatri, Advocate, for the respondents. 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. The instant appeal under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the inter locutory order dated 25.05.2011 passed by learned Single Judge directing the appellants to consider the application of the writ petitioner - respondents under the policy instructions and to take necessary action to allot the plots to them. 2. The writ petitioners – respondents have asserted that their land was acquired and they are covered by the expression oustees. A perusal of the impugned order would show that under the oustees quota, the claim of LPA No.1849 of 2011 (O&M) -2- the writ petitioners – respondents was declined on the ground that they failed to apply when the advertisement for allotment of plot was issued in respect of the sectors concerned. On the ground that the plots have been available in Sectors 25, 26, 27 & 28, Panchkula, the learned Single Judge proceeded to issue interim direction for consideration of the applications of the writ petitioner – respondents. 3. Feeling aggrieved, the Haryana Urban Development Authority and its officers have filed the instant appeal. 4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties. 5. The fundamental principle which govern the issuance of interim direction need not be emphasized. It is sufficed to observe that a mandatory interim order is not ordinarily passed. The relevant consideration which are taken into account by the Court while passing interim order are balance of convenience, prima facie case and irreparable loss. A close scrutiny of the facts and the order passed by the learned Single Judge would show that any irreparable loss is likely to result to writ petitioner – respondents. The balance of convenience is also not in favour of the writ petitioner – respondents. The controversy before the learned Single Judge would show that the rights of the parties are yet to be finally determined. Therefore, in such a situation, the interim order virtually amount to allowing the writ petition. Such an order should not have been passed by the learned Single Judge. 6. In view of the above, the order dated 25.05.2011 is set aside. However, we make it clear that any observation made in this order shall not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case. The LPA No.1849 of 2011 (O&M) -3- learned Single Judge shall consider the claim of the parties in accordance with law without being influenced by any one of the observations. (M.M. KUMAR) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIV NARAIN RAINA) JUDGE 03.10.2011 manju