IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1) CWP No.16162 of 2009 Date of Decision: 22.09.2010 M.P.Aggarwal ........Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others .......Respondents 2) CWP No.18086 of 2009 Pankaj Gupta ........Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others .......Respondents 3) CWP No.15306 of 2009 Smt. Ruchi Gupta ........Petitioner Versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others .......Respondents 4) CWP No.14150 of 2009 Sh. Amit Kumar ........Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others .......Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI Present: Mr. Amit Jhanji, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.16162 of 2009. Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.18086 of 2009. CWP Nos.16162, 18086, 15306 & 14150 of 2009 -2- Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.15306 of 2009. Mr. Ajit Malik, Advocate for the petitioner in CWP No.14150 of 2009. Mr. R.D.Sharma, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate for the respondents. ****** PERMOD KOHLI, J. In view of the identical facts and common questions of law, these petitions have been heard and are being disposed of by this common order. Haryana Urban Development Authority invited applications for allotment of housing/residential plots of different categories/sizes for Sector 25 (Part-II-A), Panipat in the year 2001. One of the category was for industrial workers. All the petitioners herein claiming to be eligible applied for allotment. All of them were allotted plots, vide separate allotment letters. One P.P.Kapoor filed a Civil Writ Petition No.253 of 2008 challenging the allotment. This Court directed State Vigilance Bureau to hold an enquiry into the allotments. On the basis of the observations of the Vigilance Bureau, the allotments of the petitioners came to be cancelled, vide the orders impugned in these petitions. It is, however, admitted position that before cancellation, Show Cause Notices were issued to the petitioners. Apart from other grounds, one of the ground raised in the petitions is that the orders are non-speaking and the findings and reports of the State Vigilance Bureau were never furnished to the petitioners. From the impugned order, it appears that the cancellation has been ordered only by observing that the petitioners did not fall within the purview of Industrial Workers and the allotments were made in violation of the policy. The petitioners have filed detailed reply to the Show Cause Notices disputing CWP Nos.16162, 18086, 15306 & 14150 of 2009 -3- not only the report of the Vigilance Bureau but also explained their status as Industrial Workers. However, from the impugned order, it appears that the pleas of the petitioners have not been taken note of and not dealt with. In a similar matter, this Court set aside the order of cancellation in C.W.P. No.13448 of 2009, decided on 26.08.2010 with the following observations:- “The petitioner has placed on record some documents to substantiate his claim that he is an industrial worker. From the perusal of the impugned order, it appears that the petitioner's allotment has been cancelled on the ground of using forged documents in support of his claim. Neither the nature of documents have been indicated nor any other details are given therein. As a matter of fact, the impugned order is non-speaking one. It appears that the petitioner's reply has not been appropriately considered while passing the impugned order. In view of the above circumstances, this petition is allowed. Impugned order dated 1.7.2009 is hereby set aside. However, the respondents are granted liberty to re-examine the claim of the petitioner for allotment of Plot No.1406 referred to hereinabove. Let the claim of the petitioner be reconsidered. Petitioner shall be provided fresh opportunity to produce any record as he may desire to produce. On holding a fresh consideration, a fresh order may be passed within a period of three months." The petitioners are similarly situated. In view of the above, these petitions are allowed. Orders impugned in the writ petitions are set aside. Respondents shall re-examine and decide the claim of the petitioners in accordance with observations CWP Nos.16162, 18086, 15306 & 14150 of 2009 -4- contained in the order dated August 26, 2010. Copy of this order be placed on each connected file. 22.09.2010 (PERMOD KOHLI) Gagan JUDGE