IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH SHIMLA C.W.P. No. 715 of 2007 Date of decision: 27. 7. 2009 Manjinder Singh …..Petitioner Versus State of H.P. and others ……Respondents Coram: The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Deepak Gupta, J. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, J. Whether approved for reporting ?1 . no For the Petitioner: Mr. N.K. Thakur, Advocate. For the respondent : Mr. R.M. Bisht, Dy. Advocate General, with Mr. Vikas Rathore,and Mr. Rajesh Mandhotra Dy. Advocate General, for respondent Nos. 1 to 4. Mr. Devinder Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 5. Deepak Gupta, J (Oral). By means of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed that the allotment of L-14 Vend Unit No. 3, Hamirpur road Una, in favour of respondent No.5, be quashed and the same be allotted to him. Admittedly, the allotments were made by draw of lots on 12.3.2007 for the financial year 2007-2008, which commenced on 1st April, 2008 and the validity of the auction was for a period of one year at the first instance. 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?. yes - 2 - In the instant case, the petition was filed on 19th May, 2007, much after the allotment in favour of respondent No. 5 had already been made. No stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner and respondent No. 5 is running the Vend since then. Reliance has been placed by Shri N.K. Thakur on the judgment on this court in CWP No. 364 of 2007, decided on 25.9.2007. Without going into the merits of the case, we find that the two cases are distinguishable since in that case, the writ petition was filed before allotment in favour of the successful allottee had actually commenced. In fact, the matter was taken up by this Court on 30th March, 2007. The stay order was granted in favour of the petitioner and thereafter petitioner ran the Vend. The court in the said judgment held that the presence of the successful bidder was not necessary. Be that as it may, the question whether the representative of the bidder was present or not is a question which cannot be decided in the writ petition. The main claim of the petitioner is now with regard to damages/compensation. What are the damages/ compensation, if any, to be awarded is a mater which can only be decided in civil proceedings and not in writ proceedings. In view of the aforesaid facts, we dispose of the writ petition as being belated being hit by the principles of delay and latches but give liberty to the petitioner to file appropriate civil proceedings for recovery of - 3 - damages/compensation as he may be so advised. The writ petition is disposed of. No order as to costs. CMP No. 1244/2007 Disposed of. (Deepak Gupta),J. July 27, 2009 (Surinder Singh),J (cm)