IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 2189 of 2007 Date of Decision: 12.02.2007 Vinod Kumar ......Petitioner through Mr. Sunil Bali, Advocate versus State of Punjab and others .......Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIJENDER JAIN, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIVE BHALLA 1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers 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 ? ***** Vijender Jain, Chief Justice (Oral) The petitioner impugns an order dated 15.09.2006 passed by the Secretary & Director of Industries & Commerce, Punjab, Chandigarh pursuant to the directions of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No. 7383 of CWP No. 2189 of 2007 [2] 2006. By way of the afore mentioned order, the State of Punjab was directed to dispose of the writ petitioners claim regarding allotment of a plot in Industrial Development Colony, Ferozepur as the petitioner claimed that the entire amount of consideration had already been charged from him on 16.5.1977. We have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and perused the paper book. An advertisement dated 9.4.1977 was issued inviting applications for industrial plots of different sizes as well as for 12 shops. Interested entrepreneurs were required to apply to the Director of Industries, Punjab, Chandigarh in a prescribed proforma within 30 days from the date of advertisement. The applicants were required to attach a demand draft of Rs. 1000/-, as earnest money. As noticed in the impugned order, in response to the advertisement, 55 applications were received.28 applications were received in time whereas 27 applications w ere received after the expiry of the due date. The application of the petitioner was received after the due date. As recorded in the impugned order, the Allotment Committee examined all the applications, interviewed 53 entrepreneurs and after examining all the pros and cons and various other aspects, approved a list of 43 entrepreneurs on merits. The petitioner's claim was also examined by the Committee and rejected. Twenty nine years thereafter, the petitioner awoke from his slumber and filed the earlier writ petition. It is only on account of the direction issued in the writ petition that matter was examined by the CWP No. 2189 of 2007 [3] State Government. Apart from being highly belated the petitioner's claim was rejected, after due consideration. In our considered opinion, the present petition is an abuse of the process of Court, as a stale claim rejected 29 years ago is sought to be revived by way of this petition. No ground to interfere. Dismissed. (VIJENDER JAIN) CHIEF JUSTICE (RAJIVE BHALLA) JUDGE 12.02.2007 'ravinder'