IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. COCP No. 706 of 2011. [O&M] Date of Decision: 21st November, 2011. Lakhmi Chand & Ors. Petitioners through Mr. Harsh Aggarwal, Advocate Versus Vatsal Vashist & Anr. Respondents through Mr. A.K.Kansal, Advocate CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 1. Whether Reporters of 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] The petitioners' claim under the 'Oustees Quota' was to be considered in terms of the directions issued by this Court. The allged non-compliance of the directions has led to these contempt proceedings. The Estate Officers, HUDA, Gurgaon and Rewari have filed their reply/affidavit explaining that despite several opportunities, the petitioners have failed to appear and as such no decision could be taken. Faced with this, learned counsel for the petitioners submits that given one more opportunity, the petitioners shall appear before the Prescribed Authority. Though, issuance of fresh directions may not be strictly within the scope of the contempt proceedings, however, with a view to obviate the next round of litigation, these contempt proceedings are disposed of with a direction that in case the petitioners make an appropriate representation before the Prescribed Authority within a period of one month, the same shall be considered and disposed of in accordance with law and after hearing them in person, if so required, within two months thereafter. Disposed of. Rule discharged. November 21, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE