IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 1124 of 2008 Date of Decision : January 24, 2008 Virender Chaudhary ....Petitioner Versus Union of India and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN Present : Mr. Puneet Bali, Advocate for the petitioner. M.M. KUMAR, J. This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for quashing the selection of Shri Sewa Ram-respondent No.5 for allotment to L.P.G. distribution at Ballabgarh in District Faridabad, who has been placed at serial No. 1 by the Selection Board. It has further been prayed to direct respondents No. 1 to 4 not to issue letter of intent in favour of Shri Sewa Ram-respondent No. 5, in pursuance to the order dated 15.11.2007 passed by this Court in C.W.P. No. 14143 of 2006 till the decision of the representations of the petitioner dated 15.12.2007 (Annexure P.6) and 3.1.2008 (Annexure P.8). Still further a declaration has been sought to direct official respondents No. 1 to 4 to declare Shri Sewa Ram-respondent No. 5 ineligible for allotment of L.P.G. Distributorship at Ballabhgarh and not to cancel the already commissioned dealership of the petitioner which is running since 30.9.2004, he being at serial No. 2 in the select panel. It is appropriate to notice that instant petition has been filed by C.W.P. No. 1124 of 2008 -2- Virender Chaudhary, who was respondent No. 3 in C.W.P. No. 14143 of 2006, which was filed by Sewa Ram, who has now been impleaded as respondent No.5, complaining that he was in the select-list at serial No.1 and therefore, was entitled to the allotment of L.P.G. Distribution. The writ petition filed by respondent No. 5-Sewa Ram was allowed by a Division Bench of this Court on 15.11.2007 and even a Review Application No. 14 of 2008 filed by the petitioner against the said judgment was dismissed on 18.1.2008. The petitioner, having lost the litigation, has come back taking the plea that the allotment of L.P.G. Distributionship to respondent No.5 was not in order, as he had made some wrong declaration in the application form. All these pleas were available to the petitioner in the earlier litigation and the same are deemed to have been taken and even if not taken then the same deemed to have been decided against him. The provisions of Order II Rule 2 C.P.C. are fully applicable in the case of the petitioner. Moreover, a Full Bench of this Court in case titled as Teja Singh Vs. Union Territory of Chandigarh and others A.I.R. 1982 P&H 169 (F.B.), has categorically held that provisions of C.P.C. are fully applicable to the writ proceedings also. There is no merit in the petition. Dismissed. ( M.M. KUMAR ) JUDGE ( T.P.S. MANN ) JANUARY 24, 2008 JUDGE satish