IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8622 of 2010 Date of decision: 2.11.2010 Vikas Gupta …..Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others ……Respondents CORAM: Hon’ble Mr.Justice Jasbir Singh Hon’ble Mr.Justice Gurdev Singh Present: Mr.Pardeep Bajaj, Advocate for Mr.Rupinder Khosla, Advocate for the petitioner Mr.Kamal Sehgal, Addl.A.G. Haryana Jasbir Singh, J. (Oral) When notice of motion was issued, following order was passed by this Court on 12.5.2010:- “Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the earlier petition, being CWP No.20128 of 2005, filed by the petitioner was dismissed, vide order dated 2.5.2007 (P-11) and even the SLP(C) No.14083 of 2007 was also dismissed as withdrawn vide order dated 10.9.2007 (P-12). He has further submitted that a fresh cause of action has arisen to the petitioner on account of a new policy floated by the Haryana State Industrial and Infrastructure Development Corporation (HSIIDC), dated 22.10.2008 and under the aforesaid policy the representatives of the petitioner were also called. The plot adjoining to the land of the petitioner stands released under the new policy even after award, which was also subject matter of acquisition. Civil Writ Petition No.8622 of 2010 Notice of motion for 24.5.2010. Ms.Palika Monga, DAG Haryana, who is present in the Court, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 to 4. Five copies of the paper book shall be handed over to her during the course of the day by the learned counsel for the petitioner. Mr.Kamal Sehgal, standing counsel for HSIIDC, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.5. Two copies of the paper book shall be supplied lto him by the learned counsel for the petitioner.” In paragraph Nos.9 to 12 of the writ petition, it is specifically stated that after issuance of new Policy regarding release of land by the State of Haryana, the petitioner has submitted an application to get relief under that Policy. He was called for personal hearing. However, subsequent thereto, no order was passed so far as his application is concerned. In reply filed, it is stated that the petitioner was not eligible to get benefit under the Policy in view of order passed by this Court on 21.11.2008. Be that as it may, it is an admitted fact that no order has been passed on application moved by the petitioner. In view of above, this writ petition is disposed of by issuing directions to the respondents to decide application of the petitioner by passing a detailed and reasoned order. If the petitioner is found eligible, necessary relief be granted to him, to the contrary, his application be dismissed and a copy of the order be supplied to him. Needful be done within three months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. (Jasbir Singh) Judge 02.11.2010 (Gurdev Singh) gk Judge 2 Civil Writ Petition No.8622 of 2010 3