CWP No.22708/2010 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: 22.12.2010 Melton Furnaces (P) Ltd. ...Petitioner VERSUS State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI PRESENT: Mr.Surya Parkash, Advocate for the petitioner Permod Kohli, J. (Oral) Notice of motion. Mr.RD Sharma, DAG, Haryana who is present in Court has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondent no.1 and Mr.Monish Bansal, Advocate has been asked to accept notice on behalf of respondents no.2 to 4. Keeping in view the controversy involved and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, this petition is disposed of at motion stage itself. In response to the advertisement issued by the HUDA, one Smt. CWP No.22708/2010 2 Sheela wife of Ramesh Kumar r/o H.No.740, Sector 18, Housing Board Colony, Faridabad applied for allotment of plot in Sector 52, Gurgaon. Draw of lots was held on 9.6.2003. Apart from depositing Rs.48,600/- i.e. 10% of the total sale consideration, she also deposited 15% of the allotment money i.e. Rs.72,900/- on 14.8.2003. The petitioner purchased the said plot from aforesaid Smt. Sheela and approached the respondents for transfer and re-allotment to it. The respondents re-allotted the plot to the petitioner vide letter dated 15.6.2004 and charged Rs.10,125/- as transfer fee. However, the petitioner was not offered the possession. The respondents informed the petitioner that the plot is under litigation. The petitioner approached the respondents for allotment of alternate plot. It is stated that the respondents issued letter of offer of possession to a number of similarly situated allottees in Sector 52, Gurgaon in November, 2007, but not to the petitioner. It is further stated that plots no.1315-A, 1315-B, 1315-C and 1315-D are lying vacant and unallotted in Sector 52, Gurgaon. The petitioner thereafter moved a representation (Annexure P- 5) but no decision has been taken thereon. The grievance of the petitioner is that the petitioner has not been given the possession of the plot nor any alternate plot has been allotted to it, in view of various policy decisions of the respondents. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner would be satisfied if respondents are directed to decide the representation. In view of the above, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent no.3 to decide the representation of the petitioner within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received by the competent authority. In the meanwhile, one of the CWP No.22708/2010 3 available plots mentioned here-in-above in Sector 52, Gurgaon be kept reserved. Needless to say in the event the claim of the petitioner is to be rejected, it shall be by a reasoned and speaking order. The petitioner is at liberty to supplement representation, if so desired within two weeks. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE 22.12. 2010 MFK CWP No.10585 of 2010 4