CWP No. 20734 of 2010 1 In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh Date of decision: 22.11.2010 Aero Kraft Overseas Business & others ... Petitioners Versus Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Dev. Corporation Limited, Panchkula .... Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotrii, Senior Advocate, with Mr.Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate,for the respondents. PERMOD KOHLI, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr. Dheeraj Chawla, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondent. Requisite number of copies of the paper-book have been supplied to him today itself in Court. With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, this petition is being disposed of at the motion stage. Petitioner No.1 is a Partnership firm, whereas petitioner Nos.2 and 3 are its partners. They applied for allotment of an Industrial Plot pursuant to the advertisement issued by the respondent under the State's Industrial Policy of 2005 under NRI category. The short grievance of the petitioners is that the respondent has charged Rs.2000/- per square meter and Rs.3000/- per square meter from the allottees under the NRI category, whereas from the petitioners, the respondent has demanded the amount at the rate of Rs.4000/- per square CWP No. 20734 of 2010 2 meter. The petitioners have served a legal notice (Annexure P-8) in this regard. Mr. Girish Agnihotri, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners submits that the petitioners would be satisfied if the respondent is directed to decide the legal notice by taking into consideration the fact that all other similarly situated applicants under the same category have been charged the amount at the rate of Rs.2000/- and Rs.3000/- per square meter, respectively. In view of the above, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the respondent to decide the legal notice (Annexure P-8) served by the petitioners within a period of three months. While deciding the legal notice, the respondent will take into consideration the fact that other similarly situated applicants under the same category are charged lesser rates. In the meantime, the petitioner shall continue to pay the instalments at the aforesaid rate. However, such payment shall be without prejudice to the rights of the petitioners for claiming refund if ultimately the decision is in their favour. In the event, the claim of the petitioners is to be rejected, the same shall be by a speaking and reasoned order. 22.11.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) BLS JUDGE