L.P.A.No. 493 of 2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH L.P.A.No. 493 of 2010 Date of decision: 5.1.2011 Darshinder Pal Kaur ................Appellant Versus The State of Punjab and others ...................Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH Present: Mr. Bhupinder Singh, Advocate for the appellant Ms Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab RANJAN GOGOI, ACJ (oral) The appellant-writ petitioner has filed this appeal against the order dated 3.2.2010 of the learned Single Judge and for modification of the directions issued thereunder. The relevant facts that will be required to be noticed lie within a short compass. The petitioner's father, Swaran Singh, applied for a plot pursuant to an advertisement issued by Public Housing Authority in Ludhiana in the year 1981. He deposited an earnest money of Rs.3000/- but was not successful in the draw that was held. The father of the petitioner expired in 1985. Thereafter petitioner again applied by depositing a further sum of Rs.2000/- against another advertisement but was again unsuccessful. In the year 1986 the petitioner again applied for allotment of a plot but her application was rejected as she had deposited only Rs.1000/- as earnest money against the stipulated amount of Rs.6000/-. The petitioner claimed credit of the amount of Rs.5000/- that was already deposited by her and her L.P.A.No. 493 of 2010 2 father alongwith the earlier applications. While the claim of the petitioner for adjustment of the security deposit was being verified, the allotment of the plots were made. In these circumstances, the petitioner had approached this court by instituting the writ petition out of which this appeal has arisen. In the said writ petition the petitioner had prayed for a direction for allotment of a plot to her. The learned Single Judge hearing the writ petition took the view that the facts of the case would justify a direction to the respondents that if plots are still available with the respondents, the case of the petitioner could be considered and an allotment made at the present market rate. Aggrieved by the said order, this appeal has been filed. On consideration of the facts of the case, we do not find any infirmity in the order passed by the learned Single Judge. In fact we are of the view that the learned Single Judge was generous to issue the directions which are substantially in favour of the appellant. The order of the learned Single Judge will, therefore, not call for any interference. Appeal is dismissed. No costs. (RANJAN GOGOI) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH) JUDGE January 5, 2011 RSK NOTE: Whether to be referred to the Reporter or not? _____ L.P.A.No. 493 of 2010 3