IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: May 17, 2011 1. Civil Writ Petition No.7903 of 2010 Sukha & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . 2. Civil Writ Petition No.9004 of 2010 Prem & others .....PETITIONER(S) VERSUS State of Punjab & others .....RESPONDENT(S) . . . CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA PRESENT: - Mr. T.P.S. Makkar, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr. Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate, for respondent Nos.4 and 5. CWP No.7903 of 2010 [2] . . . AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral) 1. This shall dispose of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7903 of 2010 titled ‘Sukha & others vs. State of Punjab & others’ and Civil Writ Petition No.9004 of 2008 titled ‘Prem & others vs. State of Punjab & others’ as common issue is involved. 2. For reference to facts, file of Civil Writ Petition Nos.7903 of 2010 titled ‘Sukha & others vs. State of Punjab & others’ is being taken up. 3. The petition has been filed for praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari, quashing Order dated 19.11.2008 (Annexure P-6) passed by respondent No.2 i.e. Deputy Commissioner, Ferozepur. In the impugned order (Annexure P-6), it has been said that on the basis of report of a Committee, 35 allotments made to ineligible persons have been cancelled. 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners contends that cancellation is illegal. 5. Learned counsel for respondent Nos.4 and 5 contends that material fact has been concealed from this Court, in so much as, the issue was raised in Public Interest Litigation by way of filing Civil Writ Petition No.10121 of 2007. The said petition was disposed of vide Order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure R-3). If the order is referred to, there is no scope for interference in the present writ petition. CWP No.7903 of 2010 [3] 6. Order dated 21.11.2008 (Annexure R-3) passed in Civil Writ Petition No.10121 of 2007 titled ‘Amrik Singh & others vs. State of Punjab & others’ reads as under:- “Present: Mr. P.P.S. Duggal, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab Mr. Anureet Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.4, Gram Panchayat. Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate for respondents no.5 to 49. Mr. Amol Rattan Singh, Addl. A.G. Punjab submits that consequent upon enquiries made into the validity of the allotments in question, the Deputy Commissioner has already passed an order on 19.11.2008 and cancelled 35 allotments made in favour of ineligible persons. Mr. Duggal, counsel for the petitioners submits that in the light of the said subsequent developments, no further directions are needed. Petition is accordingly disposed off as infructuous.” 21.11.2008 Sd/- T.S. Thakur Chief Justice Sd/- Jasbir Singh Judge” 7. On perusal of the order (Annexure R-3), in context of the prayer made in the writ petition placed on record as Annexure R- 1, it becomes evident that the Division Bench of this Court has already gone into the issue. Cognizance of the fact that 35 allotments made in favour of ineligible persons was taken. In such circumstances, no ground for interference in these two petitions is made out, particularly, because petitioners were duly represented by Mr. B.S. Sidhu, Advocate. Petitioners are the persons who were found to be ineligible for allotment of plots. CWP No.7903 of 2010 [4] 8. The petitions are accordingly dismissed. (AJAI LAMBA) May 17, 2011 JUDGE avin 1. To be referred to the Reporters or not? 2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?