C.W.P. No.7723 of 1987 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.7723 of 1987 Date of Decision:05.02.2010 Sh. Lakhbir Pal Singh Sihota ....Petitioner Versus The Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: None for the petitioner. Mr. Manohar Lall, Addl. A.G., Punjab. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. The order cancelling of allotment of shop-cum-residence flat made to the petitioner under the "Assistance to Educated Unemployed Scheme" is a subject of challenge before this Court. The allotment had been made on 06.04.1976 and a conveyance had also been made on 09.03.1978. The first installment of Rs.6,000/- had been paid and when there had been defaults in making further installments, a show cause notice had been issued on 24.04.1984 and after obtaining a reply on 23.05.1984, the impugned order was passed cancelling the allotment. Against this decision of cancellation, there had been an appeal filed to the Secretary Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh. 2. Even apart from filing appeal, the petitioner appears to C.W.P. No.7723 of 1987 -2- have invoked the jurisdiction of the Arbitral Tribunal by filing an application under Section 8 and 20 of the Arbitration Act of 1940. The application, however, was dismissed without entering into the controversy involved by observing that there was no dispute between parties for an adjudication and therefore, the petitioner could have no remedy. The writ petition came to be filed only subsequently. The writ petition makes a definite averment with reference to the pendency of appeal before the Secretary Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh. 3. Apart from affirming the reasons for the decision of resumption, it was also contended on behalf of the respondents that since the arbitration case failed by virtue of an order passed specifically rejecting the application filed by the petitioner, it constituted res judicata against the petitioner. The fact that the appeal had been filed was itself not disputed. 4. During the pendency of the proceedings at the second hearing, it appears that the petitioner had produced Rs.60,500/- by means of a draft drawn in the name of the Director, Industries, Punjab in purported compliance of the directions of the Court made on 19.10.1987 when the writ petition was brought for admission for the first time. The Division Bench of this Hon'ble Court had directed that the petitioner shall bring all dues which are payable by him according to the allotment letter. Evidently, the Bench was of the view that if the petitioner was willing to make the payment of what was due, a review of the decision to cancel the allotment could be undertaken subject to the objections of the respondents. C.W.P. No.7723 of 1987 -3- However, when the State Counsel representing the respondents reported to the Court on 23.11.1987 that he had no instructions to accept the draft, the Court had merely directed the draft to be kept with the Additional Registrar of this Court. The Division Bench also directed that the dispossession of the petitioner could remain stayed till further orders. 5. Now at the time when the matter is called for hearing, there is no representation on behalf of the petitioner. It is seen that there has been no adjudication with reference to the appeal, which was pending. If the appeal has been disposed of by the Secretary Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh, then there would be no need of a fresh adjudication before this Court. If the appeal has not been disposed of, the same shall be considered by the Secretary and by virtue of the said fact, the case would obtain a revival before the Secretary more than two decades later when during all the time the petitioner had been permitted to retain the possession. The Secretary shall consider whether the petitioner could be permitted to retain possession after obtaining enough reparation for non-payment of amount within time by collection of interest and penal charges admissible under the contract or admissible under the relevant Rules of allotment. 6. Subject to these observations, the writ petition is disposed of. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE February 05, 2010 Pankaj*