CWP No.2997 of 2010.doc - 1 – HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.2997 of 2010 (O&M) Date of Decision: 10.03.2011 **** Jagjit Singh . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Mansur Ali, Advocate for the petitioner Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab Mr. Harit Sharma, Advocate for respondents No.2&3 **** SURYA KANT J. (ORAL) (1). The petitioner was allotted booth No.68, Phase III-B-2, Mohali being a 1984 riot-affected person. The said booth was resumed on 06.07.1994 (Annexure P5) due to the petitioner’s failure to deposit the 25% amount. His appeal and revision etc. were also rejected and so was the fate of CWP No.17493 of 1996 filed by him challenging those orders. The petitioner has again approached this Court seeking allotment of the above-stated booth afresh in the light of the subsequent Policy decisions dated 23.10.2001, 03.11.2008, 16.12.2009, 04.01.2010 & CWP No.2997 of 2010.doc - 2 – 14.09.2001 (Annexures P7 to P11, respectively) issued by the Government of Punjab as well as the directions passed by this Court in CWP No.16345 of 2009 (Kuljit Singh & Ors. v. State of Punjab & Anr.) and other connected matters on the basis of which he claims his fresh entitlement for allotment. (2). Counsel for the respondents, on the other hand, submits that since the resumption order has already attained finality, the petitioner cannot be granted the benefit of these policy decisions. (3). Having heard learned counsel of the parties and without expressing any views on the petitioner’s entitlement but keeping in view the limited relief sought by him, I am of the considered view that let the competent authority consider as to whether or not the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the above-stated policy decisions (Annexure P7 to P11) taken by the State Government as well as the decision rendered by this Court in Kuljit Singh and others’ case (supra). (4). Ordered accordingly. (5). Respondents No.2&3 are directed to pass appropriate speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. (6). Disposed of. Dasti. CWP No.2997 of 2010.doc - 3 – 10.03.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge