IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.8367 of 1988 (O&M) Date of decision: 19.05.2010 Shri Gurdev Singh ….Petitioner versus The State of Punjab through the Secretary, Industries Department, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents II. Civil Writ Petition No.2111 of 1989 Harpal Singh ….Petitioner versus The State of Punjab through the Secretary, Industries Department, Sector 17, Chandigarh and others. …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN ------ Present: None for the petitioners. Mr. Manohar Lall, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. ----- 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? ----- K.Kannan, J (Oral) 1. Both the writ petitions had been admitted in the years 1988 and 1989 with directions by the respective Judges that the cases shall be taken up along with Civil Writ Petition No.6698 of 1987. I find that the said writ petition i.e. Civil Writ Petition No.6698 of 1987 has been already disposed of by this Court on 2nd June, 1989 but strangely these two cases have remained unattended to the above case. Civil Writ Petition No.8367 of 1988 (O&M) - 2 - 3. The writ petitions contain a challenge to an order passed on 08.09.1987 declaring the petitioners to be ineligible for participation in an auction of industrial plots, as their projects were not found viable. On a similar decision taken along with the above persons, this Court has given the direction in Civil Writ Petition No. 6698 of 1987 to invite fresh applications and to reconsider the matter of allotment of plots to different entrepreneurs after framing and publishing a specific policy in that regard. The order further directs that all the applicants shall be made aware of the suitability and viability of the projects required to be set up in the industrial estate. In terms of the order, there ought to have been fresh notices to all the persons and all the properties must have been allotted on due consideration of the fulfillment of the relevant criteria for allotment. The reliefs sought for in the writ petitions namely of a challenge to a decision treating them as ineligible ought to have been addressed in the meanwhile. 4. There is no representation for the petitioners and I have the benefit of the able assistance of the counsel appearing on behalf of the State Shri Manohar Lall to refer to the earlier judgment of this Court and the nature of order that was passed. I do not think that there survives any matter for consideration in the writ petitions. 5. The writ petitions are dismissed as having become infructuous. (K.KANNAN) JUDGE 19.05.2010. sanjeev