IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 12300 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 7, 2008 Rajinder Kumar Godara …Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority and another …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for the respondents. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. The petitioner has claimed that his application for allotment of residential plot in Sector 57, Gurgaon, was not considered because the registration number given to him, namely, G57-056608 was also given to one Shri Shiv Nath Rai. The respondents in the impugned order passed on the direction issued by this Court in C.W.P. No. 6476 of 2005, filed by the petitioner, have conceded that the petitioner Shri Rajinder Singh Godara and one Shri Shiv Nath Rai were given the aforementioned registration number. C.W.P. No. 12330 of 2007 However, the application number of both the persons was different and in the draw of lot held on 25.11.2004, Application No. 0103441, submitted by Shri Shiv Nath Rai was successful. Accordingly, Plot No. 1721P was allotted to him on 21.1.2005. The respondents have also placed on record along with the written statement the slip which was put in the draw of lot and the same bears the application number as well as Registration No. Therefore, there is no issue with regard to the identity of the successful applicant. The writ petition is wholly misconceived and is, thus, liable to be dismissed. For the reasons aforementioned this petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 7, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 2