C.W.P No. 16784 of 1989 (O&M) ::1:: IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.M No. 16540 of 2010 and C.W.P No. 16784 of 1989 (O&M) Date of decision : December 08, 2010 Mai Ram and others, ...... Petitioners v. The State of Haryana and others, ...... Respondents *** CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI *** Present : Mr. S.D.Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Pritam Saini, Advocate for petitioners No.1,2,3,10, 13 to 24. Mr. Amit Gupta, DAG Haryana for respondents No.1 and 2. Ms. Vandana Malhotra, Advocate for respondents No.3 and 4. *** 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? *** AJAY TEWARI, J (Oral) C.M No.16540 of 2010 Despite issuance of notice of this application, no reply has been filed. Consequently, this application is allowed and the documents, Annexures P-4 and P-5, are taken on record. C.W.P No.16784 of 1989 C.W.P No. 16784 of 1989 (O&M) ::2:: Learned counsel for the petitioners asserts that as per the policy, Annexure P-5, it was decided that in such cases where plots were available and the applicants are such who are otherwise oustees, then their cases may be considered for allotment despite the fact that the acquisition took place prior to the coming into force of the policy of 1997. Apart from that, learned counsel for the petitioners states that in the writ petition, he has raised the allegation of discrimination. He prays that respondent No.3 may be directed to consider the case of the petitioners, in view of these facts. Counsel for respondents No.3 and 4 has no objection thereto. In the circumstances, this writ petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the case of the petitioners in the above terms and pass a speaking order thereon, in accordance with law, within three months from the receipt of a certified copy of this order. ( AJAY TEWARI ) December 08, 2010. JUDGE `kk'