IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.18632 of 2010 Date of Decision : October 13, 2010. Shingara Singh and others .....Petitioners versus State of Punjab and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT. Present : Mr.R.L.Batta, Senior Advocate with Mr.Nikhil Batta, Advocate, for the petitioners. Mr.Anil K.Sharma, Addl.AG Pb. for respondent Nos.1 & 5 Mr.H.S.Brar, Addl.AG, Punjab for respondent Nos.2 to 4. -.- 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) Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 5 and Mr.H.S.Brar, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.2 to 4. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no need to seek any counter reply from the respondents at this stage. The petitioners who belong to the weaker section of the Society and most of whom belong to reserved categories also, seek a C.W.P.No .18632 of 2010 2 mandamus to direct the respondent-authorities to re-allot them one room tenements/flats (LIG Group) on the basis of their long possession. They further seek a direction for regularization of the allotment as per the allotment letters dated 30.12.1994 (Annexure P-7) instead of as per the terms and conditions contained in the allotment letters dated 11.12.2006 (Annexure P-13). The petitioners have further sought not to include the tenements/flats in their possession in the draw of lots scheduled to be held on 12.10.2010. The above-stated claim has been put forth by the petitioners before the authorities vide their representations dated 6.1.2007 and 4.10.2010 (Annexures P-15 & P-16 respectively) also but without any response thereto. Having learned learned counsel for the parties and considering the nature of relief sought in this writ petition, however, without expressing any views on the merits of the petitioners' claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondent Nos.2, 4 & 5 to consider and dispose of the above-mentioned claim of the petitioners by passing a speaking order, preferably within a period of three months, from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order. Ordered accordingly. Dasti. October 13, 2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE