IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.20275 of 2005 Date of Decision:- 18.03.2008 M/s. Inder Sain Kailash Chand & ors. ....Petitioner(s) through Mr.J.S.Dahiya, Advocate. vs. The Chief Administrator, Haryana Agriculture Marketing Board and ors. ....Respondent(s) through Mr.R.S.Kundu, Addl.AG, Haryana. *** CORAM:-HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. *** 1) Whether Reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? 2) To be referred to the Reporters or not? 3) Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? *** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) In this civil writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution, the petitioners seek a writ in the nature of Certiorari for quashing of the impugned letter dated 11.8.2005 (Annexure P-16) as well as the orders dated 1.12.2005 (Annexures P-18 to P-31) whereby some extra amount is sought to be recovered from them over and above the original allotment price. The petitioners have also sought a writ in the nature of Mandamus directing the respondents to give them the same size of plots on the same price as were allotted between the years 1993 to 2006 to other allottees and also to deliver possession thereof. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that the controversy raised in the present writ petition has since been decided by a Division Bench of this Court vide judgment dated September 12, 2006 C.W.P. No.20275 of 2005 -2- passed in C.W.P.No.18684 of 2005( Smt.Sunita Gupta and others vs. State of Haryana and others). He accordingly submits that the respondents are obligated to consider the claim of the petitioners also in the light of the above-stated judgment. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondents submits that in the absence of any reply, he is not in a position to admit or deny as to whether the petitioners' claim is covered by the above-stated judgment. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and without expressing any views on the merits of the claim contained in this petition, the same is disposed of with a direction to the respondents to reconsider the petitioners' claim in the light of the above-mentioned Division Bench judgment of this Court in Smt.Sunita Gupta's case (supra) and if it is found that the petitioners' case is at par with those of the writ petitioners in the above-stated case and they too are entitled for some consequential relief in terms thereof, such benefits may be granted to the present petitioners as well. The needful shall be done with a period of four months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. March 18, 2008 ( SURYA KANT ) poonam JUDGE