Civil Writ Petition No. 1448 of 1990 -1- IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 1448 of 1990 (O&M) Date of Decision : 25.3.2011 Sh. Dilbag Rai .......... Petitioner Versus The Faridabad Complex Administration through its Chief Administrator, Faridabad. ...... Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE Mr. JUSTICE K.KANNAN Present : None. **** K.KANNAN, J. (ORAL) 1. No one has put in appearance on behalf of the parties, I proceed to dispose of the case on the basis of records. 2. The petitioner was carrying on timber business (fuel tall) at Faridabad. The 'Tall' was said to have been demolished in the month of May, 1988 without any notice. 3. On a writ petition filed, it appears that the status quo was ordered but since the petitioner complained of violation of interim order, he filed a contempt petition No. 447 of 1988. The petition came to be withdrawn, on an alleged promise by the Faridabad Complex Administration for fresh consideration of allotment of a plot to him. A plot of 100 Sq. yards was indeed offered to the petitioner, admittedly, at a concessional rate of Rs. 250/- per square yards. The petitioner made a representation for a larger plot of 200 Sq. yards Civil Writ Petition No. 1448 of 1990 -2- and this was also offered on a payment of Rs. 12,500/-. It appears that the petitioner had made the deposit of the amount as per the demand through a bank draft dated 3.2.1989. The petitioner complained that in spite of making the payment, no plot was released to the petitioner and even the materials which had been seized from the petitioner had not been returned. 4. On these contentions, the respondent has given a reply, admitting to the extent that the State accorded sanction for allotment of plot vide memo No. 8/86/89-202 dated 25.1.1990 and that further action for allotment of sites to the petitioner and others is being taken by the Administration. 5. There is no party to represent the present state of affairs. If the administration has already made a decision on the allotment pursuant to the memo dated 25.1.1990, it would itself offer a fresh cause of action to the petitioner to challenge the same if he is aggrieved by any direction given pursuance to the memo. As of now the issue of making a fresh allotment to the petitioner through a writ of mandamus does not survive for consideration on merit. 6. The writ petition is dismissed. 25.3.2011 (K.KANNAN) 'sp' JUDGE