IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 13431 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 18, 2008 Ravinder Nain …Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Amit Jain, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Arun Walia, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1. A Full Bench of this Court in the case of Anil Sabharwal v. State of Haryana, 1997 (2) PLR 7 has set aside the discretionary quota allotment of plots. The judgment of the Full Bench was challenged before Hon’ble the Supreme Court and in the case of Harsh Dhingra v. State of Haryana, AIR 2001 SC 3795. The judgment has been upheld with the rider that it would have prospective effect only. In para 8 of the judgment while dealing with the doctrine of prospective overruling it has been observed by C.W.P. No. 13431 of 2007 Hon’ble the Supreme Court that the view taken by the Full Bench in Anil Sabharwal’s case (supra) was to be effective from 23.4.1996. It further clarifies that the declaration of law made by Hon’ble the Supreme Court will have a general application and the allotments made prior to 23.4.1996 could also be cancelled if they are not in accordance with the view taken by a Division Bench of this Court in the case of S.R. Dass v. State of Haryana, 1988 PLJ 123. In other words, all those allotments of discretionary quota made on or before 23.4.1996 were accorded protection by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra) which becomes effective from 23.4.1996 when interim order had been passed. 2. In the present case, the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents commenced on 29.3.1996 (P-1) informing the petitioner that a discretionary quota plot is to be allotted to him. He was to file requisite affidavit showing that he or his spouse or dependent children have not been allotted a plot out of Haryana discretionary quota at any time in any of the Urban Estate. The affidavit was filed on 5.4.1996 (P-2). Thereafter, on 23.4.1996 (P-3) the petitioner was asked to comply with certain conditions and rate of plot was disclosed to him. Whereafter he deposited a sum of Rs. 22,835/- by bank draft dated 1.5.1996 (P-4) and the allotment letter was issued on 30.5.1996 (P-5). 3. The question for determination is whether the petitioner falls within the cut off date fixed by Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhinga’s case (supra) or his allotment has to be regarded as after that date. After examining all the documents and the correspondence between the petitioner and the respondents we have 2 C.W.P. No. 13431 of 2007 come to the conclusion that the allotment letter was issued to the petitioner only on 30.5.1996 (P-5). Even the amount of Rs. 22,835/- has been deposited by bank draft dated 1.5.1996 on same very date. If these dates are taken into account then the protection accorded by Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra) would not be available to the petitioner as allotment would be after the cut off date i.e. 23.4.1996. The aforesaid view has been taken because allotment made after 23.4.1996 would contravene the interim directions. Therefore, we find that the allotment is not protected by the judgment of Hon’ble the Supreme Court in Harsh Dhingra’s case (supra). 4. In view of the above discussion, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 18, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3