C.W.P. No.22624 of 2011 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.22624 of 2011 Date of Decision. 07.12.2011 Haryana Urban Development Authority through its Estate Officer, Rohtak .....Petitioner Versus Chairman Permanent Lok Adalat (Public Utility Services) Rohtak and another .....Respondents Present: Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the petitioner. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The order of the Permanent Lok Adalat is assailed on the ground that Rs.27,068/- has been subtracted illegally. The Lok Adalat has already found that there was nothing outstanding against the owner of the plot No.1101 at the time of transfer/reallotment by the original allottee Sh. Bhim Sen. If there is still amount payable, according to HUDA, they will be at liberty to secure the same from the original allottee. The Lok Adalat has given appropriate reasons for not allowing to the petitioner extension fee. 2. In any event, I do not think a Lok Adalat's order should be interfered with only because there is some amount, which has not been awarded in favour of HUDA when there are reasons given in the order as to why the same was being disallowed. I do not think it is again a fit case for intervention at the instance of a public authority for a very C.W.P. No.22624 of 2011 -2- small amount. There is no issue of policy involved and it will not have any bearing as a precedent to be cited in any other case. I do not think that there is any scope for intervention in the writ petition. 3. Learned counsel also makes out an issue that costs ought not to be awarded. The Lok Adalat has found that the dealing officials of the department have not properly acted and thought fit to impose costs of Rs.10,000/-. I do not think that this is again an issue for interference in a writ petition. 4. The writ petition is dismissed. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE December 07, 2011 Pankaj*