IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 19326 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : 17.10.2011 Agya Ram .... PETITIONER Versus Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH Present: Mr. Navkiran Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral ) Petitioner Agya Ram, being a Kashmiri migrant, has already been allotted a booth. He also applied for considering his case for allotment of a residential Dwelling Unit on hire purchase basis in Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh. His claim was considered and vide allotment letter dated 21.12.2000 (Annexure P-4), he was allotted Dwelling Unit No. 2519/2 of LIG category in Indira Colony, Manimajra, Chandigarh, but because of his weak financial position, the petitioner did not accept that offer. In the year 2004, after being recovered from his financial crisis, the petitioner moved an application (Annexure P-5) requesting the Deputy Commissioner, Chandigarh (respondent No.2) to re-allot the said Dwelling Unit to him. The said request of the petitioner was forwarded to the CWP No. 19326 of 2011 -2- Chandigarh Housing Board (respondent No.3), but the same has not been considered. Now, the petitioner claims that though at the time of allotment of the Dwelling Unit, he could not avail the offer due to his weak financial position, but now the respondent Board wants to further allot flats/dwelling units to some of the Kashmiri migrants, who could not be allotted the same earlier. As far as the re-allotment of the Dwelling Unit, which was earlier offered to the petitioner, is concerned, he has no claim. However, in case the respondent Board wants to allot some more flats/dwelling units to the Kashmiri migrants, who were earlier not allotted any flat/dwelling unit, name of the petitioner can also be considered in this regard. In view of these facts, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to make a representation to this effect to respondents No.2 and 3 and if any such representation is made, they are directed to consider and dispose of the same, in accordance with law, by passing a speaking order. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE October 17, 2011 ( PARAMJEET SINGH ) ndj JUDGE