IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.4101 of 2009 Date of decision: March 17, 2009. Banta Singh & Ors. ...Petitioner(s) v. Union Territory, Chandigarh Administration ...Respondent(s) CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? Present: Shri H.C. Arora, Advocate for the petitioners. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioners seek a mandamus for allotment of alternative accommodation to them under the “Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979” read with Notification dated 28.8.2003 as well as a later scheme known as the “Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme 2006” (Annexure P-3). The petitioners' claim is that they were jhuggi dwellers and were residents of Palsora Colony at the time when the respondent- Administration demolished their jhuggis on 25/26 June, 2003. The petitioners' case is that even before demolition of their jhuggis, the Chandigarh Administration had framed a scheme known as “Licensing of Tenements and Sites and Services in Chandigarh Scheme, 1979” for rehabilitation and re-settlement of the economically weaker sections of the society living in slum areas or labour colonies. It is their case that vide a notification dated 28.8.2003, the Chandigarh Administration decided to prepare a list of the eligible persons for rehabilitation in the Union Territory who had earlier made encroachments or raised constructions unauthorizedly. Subsequently, one more scheme titled as the “Chandigarh Small Flats Scheme 2006” (Annexure P-3) has been notified in terms whereof the unauthorized inhabitants who have encroached upon the public land, are allotted one room tenements on payment of licence fee. It appears that there are two sets of petitioners in this writ petition. Some of them are those whose names figure in the list of eligible persons prepared by the Chandigarh Administration in terms of the Notification dated 28.8.2003 while the rest are those whose names do not figure in that list also. The grievance of the second set of petitioners is that since they were amongst those jhuggi dwellers of Palsora Colony who were uprooted by the Chandigarh Administration on 25/26.6.2003, they are also entitled to be rehabilitated/re-settled in terms of the various schemes/notifications of the Chandigarh Administration, referred to above. During the course of hearing, it transpires that the petitioners have not raised their claim before the respondent-authorities except that some prescribed Forms are claimed to have been filled in by them. In these circumstances, without expressing any views on merits of the petitioners' claim, I deem it appropriate to dispose of this writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to make two separate representations to respondent No.3, i.e., one by those whose names have been included in the list prepared for the draw of lots and the second by those whose names do not figure in that list also. If any such representations are made by the petitioners within a period of one month along with a certified copy of this order, respondents No.1 & 3 are directed to consider the petitioners' claim in terms of the schemes/notifications referred to above and/or any other policy in this regard and dispose of the same by passing a reasoned order within a period of three months from the date of receipt thereof. Dasti . March 17, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge