IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 21737 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 23.11.2011 Dharamvir .... 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 petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Dharamvir is praying for issuing a writ of mandamus directing the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana (respondent No.2) to allot him alternative plot in lieu of the plot, which was allotted to him through a draw of lots. It is the case of the petitioner that in a draw of lots, which was held in the year 1999, he was allotted plot No. 672-G. It is admitted case that in view of the said draw of lots, allotment letter was 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 CWP No. 21737 of 2011 -2- persons, who were successful in the draw of lots. It is further the case of the petitioner 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 petitioner 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 the petition. It is also the case of the petitioner that in view of the aforesaid facts, he also made detailed representation to respondent No.2 Trust, the copy of which has been annexed with the petition as Annexure P-9. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that till date, the aforesaid representation, made by the petitioner, has not been considered and decided by respondent No.2 Trust, considering the claim of the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot. Learned counsel states that at this stage, the petitioner will be satisfied if a direction is issued to respondent No.2 Trust to consider and decide his representation in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. In view of the above, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, we dispose of this petition with a direction to respondent No.2 Trust to consider and decide the claim and representation (Annexure P-9) made by the petitioner for allotment of alternative plot, by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of CWP No. 21737 of 2011 -3- receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE November 23, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE