IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.4092 of 2010 Date of decision: 15.03.2011 Dayanand ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH Present: Mr. D.S. Malik, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Shruti Jain, AAG, Haryana for the State. Ms. Sheenu Sura, Advocate for respondents No. 2 and 3. RANJIT SINGH J. The prayer made in the writ petition is for quashing of order, Annexure P-8, dated 19.01.2010 issued by respondent No. 2 to the petitioner. As per this show cause, the plot allotted to the petitioner at Sector 25, Panipat is sought to be cancelled. The letter of allotment was cancelled on 19.01.2010, the same is challenged through the present writ petition. When this writ petition came up for hearing, the petitioner placed reliance on order passed in CWP No. 18086 of 2009 titled as Pankaj Gupta versus Haryana Urban Development Authority, Panchkula and others, in which notice of motion was issued and status quo regarding plot had been ordered to be maintained. The counsel appearing for the respondent/HUDA would point out that CWP No. 18086 of 2009 alongwith some other connected writ petitions has since been decided by this Court. The present writ Civil Writ Petition No.4092 of 2010 -2- petition, therefore, can be disposed of in the same terms. It appears that the allotment of the plot was cancelled by observing that the petitioner did not fall within the purview of industrial workers and the allotment was made to them in violation of law. This fact was disputed by the counsel for the petitioner finding that the impugned order was passed by not properly taking note of the plea raised by the petitioner. The order of cancellation was set aside by making following observations on the basis of order passed in another Writ Petition No. 13448 of 2009 decided on 26.08.2010. The said observations are as under:- “ 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 mater 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 Civil Writ Petition No.4092 of 2010 -3- 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.” The issue raised in the present writ petition being identical, the present writ petition is also disposed of in the same terms. Consequently, the impugned orders are set aside. The respondents are directed to re-examine and decide the claim of the petitioner, in accordance with the observations contained in the order dated 26.08.2010, which is reproduced above. The present writ petition is, accordingly, allowed. March 15, 2011 (RANJIT SINGH ) rts JUDGE