IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.16417 of 2006 DATE OF DECISION: October 16,2006 M/s Sandhu Builders Private Limited ….Petitioner VERSUS State of Punjab and others …..Respondents CORAM:- HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S. BHALLA PRESENT: Shri Ajay Tewari, Advocate for the petitioner. Viney Mittal,J.(Oral). The petitioner was arrayed as respondent No.3 in CWP No.2596 of 1997. The writ petitioner therein (present respondent No.3) had challenged the allotment of the land to the aforesaid respondent No.3, who was not even an applicant alongwith the writ petitioner therein and others and had not applied for the allotment of land in time. The aforesaid writ petition was contested by the respondents including respondent No.3. After taking into consideration the stand taken by the authorities and on perusal of the original record, a Division Bench of this Court vide detailed judgment dated September 15, 1998 allowed the said writ petition and set aside the allotment of land to respondent No.3 (the present writ petitioner). Thereafter, a review application being RA No.46 of 1999 was filed on behalf of the aforesaid respondent No.3 (the present writ petitioner). In the said review application, notice was issued to the CWP NO.16417 of 2006 -2- writ petitioner and the remaining respondents. The original record of the PUDA was also summoned. On perusal of the aforesaid record, we had again observed that the applicant-respondent No.3 had not submitted any application for allotment of the site in question before the expiry of period specified in notices dated May 27,1993 and June 14, 1993. In these circumstances, we had refused to review the judgment of the Division Bench dated September 15, 1998. The review application was consequently dismissed on August 3, 2006. The petitioner has again chosen to file the present writ petition challenging the judgment dated September 15, 1998 passed by a Division Bench of this Court in CWP No.2596 of 1997 and the order dated August 3, 2006 refusing to review the earlier judgment. After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner and taking into consideration the averments made in the present petition, we are satisfied that filing of the present petition by the petitioner is absolutely misuser of the process of the Court. The petitioner has consistently remained unsuccessful on two occasions. Through the present petition, the petitioner wishes to re-argue the whole matter, absolutely without any basis. The present petition is wholly mis- conceived. Dismissed. (Viney Mittal) Judge October 16, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla) KD Judge