IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 12141 of 2010. [O&M] Date of Decision: 28th February, 2011. M/s Chaman Lal Ashok Kumar Petitioner through Mr. Varun Gupta, Advocate Versus State of Punjab & Ors. Respondents through Ms. Monica Chhibar, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.S.Dadwal, Advocate, for respondents No. 2 and 3. CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT. 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? SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL] This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 12141 and 12242 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases. For the sake of brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No. 12141 of 2010. The petitioner is a duly licenced Commission Agent under the Punjab Agricultural Produce Market Act, 1969 and the Rules framed thereunder at Market Committee, Rampura Phul. With the establishment of the new Grain Market, the petitioner applied for allotment of a plot on concessional rates in terms of the government policy based upon the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Labha Ram & Sons and Ors. V State of Punjab & Ors.[1998] 5 SCC, 207. The allotment has been denied to the petitioner on the ground that its premises is located in the de-notified area. The respondents have filed their reply/affidavit reiterating the afore-stated objection. The petitioner, on the other hand, relies upon the order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board, Chandigarh [Annexure P-7], whereby the appeal of the similarly placed Commission Agents whose premises were also situated in the de-notified area, was allowed and allotments have been made in their favour. The petitioner alleges discriminatory treatment in the matter of allotment of the plots on concessional rates. Having heard learned counsel for the parties and considering the above noticed contention raised on behalf of the petitioner, however, without expressing any views on the allegations of discrimination, I deem it appropriate to set aside the orders dated 25.03.2008 and 04.06.2010 [Annexure P-2 and P-5] whereby the claim of the petitioner for allotment of plot has been rejected and direct respondents No. 2 and 3 to re-consider the said claim in the light of the above mentioned order dated 22.12.2008 passed by the Secretary, Punjab Mandi Board. The appropriate orders, after hearing the petitioner's representative, shall be passed uninfluenced of the previous orders, within a period of three months from the date a certified copy of this order is received. Disposed of. Dasti. February 28, 2011. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE