IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 18600 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 03.10.2011 Mohan Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 18601 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 03.10.2011 Satpal Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS C.W.P. No. 18608 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 03.10.2011 Surinderpal Singh .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and another ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. S.S. Salar, Advocate, for the petitioners. * * * CWPs No. 18600, 18601 & 18608 of 2011 -2- SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) This order shall dispose of three petitions, i.e. Civil Writ Petitions No. 18600, 18601 and 18608 of 2011. The petitioners in all these petitions are praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (respondent No.2) to allot them alternative plots in lieu of the plots, which were allotted to them through a draw of lots. It is the case of the petitioners that in a draw of lots, which was held in the year 1999, petitioners in CWPs No. 18600, 18601 and 18608 of 2011 were allotted plots bearing No. 642-G, 707-G and 673-G, respectively. It is admitted case that in view of the said draw of lots, allotment letters were not issued and subsequently, in the year 2003, respondent No.2 Trust took a decision to refund the earnest money. Thereafter, in the year 2005, respondent No.2 Trust passed resolution No.3 dated 31.1.2005, deciding to allot plots to the persons, who were successful in the draw of lots. It is further the case of the petitioners that the said decision of respondent No.2 Trust was approved by the Punjab Government vide letter dated 8.9.2006 (Annexure P-7). It is further the case of the petitioners that after approval of the proposal of respondent No.2 Trust to allot alternative plots to the successful candidates in the draw of lots, respondent No.2 Trust has allotted plots to few successful candidates, whose names have been mentioned in paragraph 9 of each petition. It is also the case of the petitioners that in view of the aforesaid facts, they also made separate detailed representations to CWPs No. 18600, 18601 & 18608 of 2011 -3- respondent No.2 Trust, the copies of which have been annexed in each petition as Annexure P-9. Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that till date, the aforesaid representations, made by each petitioner, have not been considered and decided by respondent No.2 Trust, considering the claim of the petitioners for allotment of alternative plots. Learned counsel states that at this stage, the petitioners will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 Trust to consider and decide their representations in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. In view of the above, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of all these three petitions with a direction to respondent No.2 Trust to consider and decide the claim and representation (Annexure P-9 in each petition) made by the petitioners for allotment of alternative plots, by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 03, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE