IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M. No. 17606 of 2010 & CWP. No. 12862 of 2009 Date of Decision: 15.12.2010. Suman Gupta --Petitioner Versus H.U.D.A & another --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. Present:- Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate for respondents. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) Notice of the C.M. Application to the counsel opposite. Mr. Siddharth Batra, Advocate present in the Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents. With the consent of learned counsel for the parties, writ petition is preponed and taken up on the board today itself for final disposal. CWP No. 12862 of 2009 Plot No. 1093, Sector 38, Gurgaon measuring 84 sq. meters was allotted to the petitioner on 23.12.1999. It appears that the petitioner changed her address which was registered with the respondents at the time of making application. Respondents seems to have sent the allotment letter to the petitioner on the old address. It is alleged that the said allotment letter was not received by the petitioner. The respondents, thereafter, cancelled the allotment vide the impugned order dated 26.5.2000 allegedly on failure of the petitioner to remit 15% of the amount within the stipulated period. In the allotment letter (Annexure P-2) as also in the cancellation CWP. No. 12862 of 2009 -2- order the address of the petitioner is mentioned as Smt. Suman Gupta W/o Sh. Ashok Gupta C-31 Sought Railway Colony, Shakur Basti, Delhi 110034. The grievance of the petitioner is that despite the intimation of the change of address the respondents failed to communicate the petitioner on the new address which prevented the petitioner from depositing the amount. From the letter dated 16.10.2000 from the Administrator, H.U.D.A to the Chief Administrator, H.U.D.A, Panchkula, it appears that the intimation of the changed address was available with the respondents but despite that the allotment letter as also the cancellation order seems to have been issued on the old address. In para 7 of the writ petition the petitioner has specifically referred to the inter-departmental communication dated 16.10.2000 (Annexure P-6). This factual position or the existence of the communication has not been denied in the reply. As a matter of fact the inter-depatmental communication has not been denied at all. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 26.5.2000 (Annexure P-4) is hereby set aside and the matter is remitted back to the respondent no.2 for re-consideration in accordance with law. Since the plot is still lying vacant, respondents will not allot the said plot to any other person till the matter is re-considered. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 15.12.2010. lucky