IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CWP No. 7248 of 2011. Date of Decision: 2nd September, 2011. ____________________________________________________________ Onkar Chand Thakur ….Petitioner. Versus State of Himachal Pradesh and others. …Respondents. Coram Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. Hon’ble Mr. Justice Surinder Singh, Judge. Whether approved for reporting?1 For the petitioner: Mr. Y.P.S. Dhaulta, Advocate. For the respondents: Mr. J.K.Verma, Dy. Advocate General. _________________________________________________________ Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral). The petitioner has approached this Court for quashing the allotment order. It is proposed that it is not necessary to issue notice to respondent No.3 since the third respondent will get sufficient time to put-forth his case before the appropriate authority. On 31.8.2011, this Court passed the following order: “Post on 2.9.2011. Learned Deputy Advocate General will get instructions as to why the 3rd respondent has been granted allotment even without an application, without considering the application of the petitioner, as stated in the writ petition. A copy of this order, duly authenticated by 1 Whether the reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment?. - 2 - the Court Master, be supplied to the learned Deputy Advocate General.” 2. Learned Deputy Advocate General on instructions submitted that the petitioner had duly applied before the Director of Estates. However, the third respondent made an application subsequently, directly to the first respondent. Without taking note of the earlier application, duly filed before the second respondent, the allotment was made by the first respondent. 3. In view of the factual position as noted above, the learned Deputy Advocate General made a prayer that the first respondent may be permitted to re-examine the matter. It is informed that the possession has not been handed over to the third respondent so far. 4. For the above stated circumstances, there will be a direction to the first respondent to look into the matter with reference to the entire record with notice to the petitioner and third respondent and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law, bearing in mind the principle of first come first serve, as prescribed under Rule 13 of the relevant Rules. 5. Needless to say that till decision by the first respondent, handing over of the possession will be deferred to either of the parties. - 3 - 6. An authenticated copy of the judgment be supplied to the petitioner to be produced before the first respondent. The petitioner will serve a copy of this judgment and a copy of the writ petition to third respondent also. 7. The writ petition stands disposed of, so also the pending applications, if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph) Chief Justice. September 2, 2011. (Justice Surinder Singh), (rc) Judge.