IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.10194 of 2011 M/s Machino Polymers Ltd., Sector 33, Gurgaon ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH 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.Ashu M. Punchhi, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** RANJIT SINGH, J. The petitioner has come against the show cause notice issued under Sections 17(1) and 17(2) of the Haryana Urban Development Authority Act, 1977. The petitioner has been directed to make certain payments in terms of the allotment letter. The grievance of the petitioner is that it is not being apprised about the basis on which the liability has been fastened. The petitioner has also made a grievance that some bigger industries are not being passed on the responsibility. The petitioner also makes a grievance that they are not being provided access to the documents. For this, the petitioner should have sought information under the Right to Information Act. Be that as it may, let the petitioner make an application giving details of the documents which he requires for the purpose of ascertaining whether liability is rightly fastened or not. The request made by the petitioner shall be considered in accordance with law and appropriate order passed Civil Writ Petition No.10194 of 2011 :2: within some time bound period. At this stage, I am not inclined to go into the challenge made in the writ petition as it is only against a show cause notice. Counsel also says that the petitioner has already filed response to the show cause notice. Let the respondents consider and pass an appropriate order in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. With the above observations, the writ petition is disposed of. June 01, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) ramesh JUDGE