C.W.P. No.18814 of 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No.18814 of 2009 Date of Decision.16.03.2010 Jai Bharat Stone Crushing Company, Palli, District Faridabad through Sh. Pawan Singh son of Ch. Raghbar Singh, General Power of Attorney of Narain Dev son of Shri Jagbir Singh, Proprietor. ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana through its Secretary, Local Bodies Department, Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents Present: Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Ravi Dutt Sharma, DAG, Haryana for respondent No.1. Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 to 4. CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN 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? -.- K. KANNAN J.(ORAL) 1. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Arvind Seth accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4 and having to the nature of order that is proposed to be passed herein, it shall not be even necessary to file any reply. 2. The petitioner seeks for a mandamus directing the respondents to allot the petitioner a plot in the stone crushing zone at the same price at which the petitioner were allotted in the year 1992. The claim of the petitioner could be seen to be at par with C.W.P. No.18814 of 2009 -2- several such applicants, who had approached this Court and when this Court had passed an order on 21.03.2009 in C.W.P. No.15242 of 2001 and a batch of cases and held that those running units, who have been closed due to the changes in the siting parameters by Notification dated 18.12.1997 would be entitled to allotment of fresh plots. Learned counsel appearing for the petitioner states that he would be satisfied if the directions, which had been issued by this Court on 21.03.2009, are also applied to his case and the respondents consider his plea for allotment on the same terms on which the claims of others would be considered pursuant to the order passed by the Court referred to above. 2. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Arvind Seth accepts notice on behalf of HUDA and having to the nature of order that is proposed to be passed herein, it shall not be even necessary to file the reply. 3. The writ petition is allowed on the above terms. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE March 16, 2010 Pankaj*