Civil Writ Petition No. 6839 of 2008 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No. 6839 of 2008 Date of decision: 25.03.2011 Chatar Sain .....Petitioner VERSUS Chandigarh Housing Board & others ....Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH PRESENT: Mr. JS Virk, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Naresh Prabhakar, Advocate, for respondent No.1. Mr. Pankaj Chauhan, Advocate, for Mr. Harsh Bunger, Advocate, for respondent No.2. Mr. Daldeep Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3. Mr. Arvind Mittal, Advocate, for respondent No.4. **** RANJIT SINGH, J. Chandigarh Housing Board has launched a scheme for allotment of 96 one bedroom, four storied flats in Sector 49, Chandigarh on self finance basis. On 21.12.2005, the draw of lots was held and the name of the petitioner was figured at Sr. No.3 under Scheduled Caste category. Names of respondent Nos.2 to 4 were figured at Sr. No.18, 19 & 22 respectively. Finally draw was Civil Writ Petition No. 6839 of 2008 -2- conducted, where the petitioner's name was placed at Sr.No.2 of the waiting list . The grievance of the petitioner is that respondent Nos.2 to 4 though did not possess the Scheduled Castes Certificates issued by the U.T., but had been considered eligible and allotment was done in their favour ignoring this fact that their certificates were not valid. Claiming himself to be competent and eligible, the petitioner has filed this writ petition. The respondents have explained the fact that while respondent Nos.2 to 4 are residents of Chandigarh. Rather one of the respondent is permanent resident of Chandigarh and she is born and brought up in Chandigarh and has now a valid certificate issued by U.T., Chandigarh, though earlier a certificate was of her father, who has got the same issued 30 years ago. The requirement in the advertisement was for a person bona fide resident of Chandigarh for a period of three years from the date of advertisement. Respondent Nos.2 to 4 were fulfilling the criteria and their eligibility had accordingly been checked. The respondent-U.T. has filed the response to the same effect that respondents No.2 to 4 were fully eligible and hence, have been rightly allotted these plots by draw of lots. The submission that their certificates are not from U.T. , in my view, could not materially affect the outcome of the allotment, as it is not that material factor. The requirement is of being resident of U.T. for 3 years. would not prima facie depend upon that. Perhaps faced with this situation, the petitioner had withdrawn his application before the Permanent Lok Adalt as all the Civil Writ Petition No. 6839 of 2008 -3- documents of the respondents were shown to Lok Adalt to their satisfaction about eligibility of the respondents. I am, thus, not inclined to interfere in exercise of writ jurisdiction. The writ petition is, accordingly, dismissed. March 25, 2011 ( RANJIT SINGH ) monika JUDGE