CWP No.14242 of 2007 -: 1 :- IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.14242 of 2007 Date of decision: February 11, 2009. Bakshish Singh ...Petitioner(s) v. State of Punjab & Ors. ...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 G.S. Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner. Shri G.S. Attariwala, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Shri Sanjeev Sharma, Advocate for respondent(s) No.2 & 3. ORDER Surya Kant, J. - (Oral): The petitioner seeks quashing of the resumption order dated 25.1.2006 (Annexure P-3) in respect of booth No.272, Phase V, Mohali. The above stated booth site was purchased by the petitioner in an open auction held on 3.5.2001 for a sum of Rs.11,25,000/-. The petitioner deposited 25% of the total price as per the terms and conditions. Thereafter, the petitioner made payment of one installment and appears to have defaulted towards the subsequent installments. This led the respondent-authorities to pass the impugned resumption order. When this case came up for preliminary hearing on 13.9.2007, the petitioner agreed to deposit the entire amount demanded by the respondents within a period of one week. CWP No.14242 of 2007 -: 2 :- Two self-explanatory orders dated 2.12.2008 and 19.12.2008 have been passed by this Court indicating that there was some variation in the calculation-sheet which was required to be reconciled by furnishing the details by the respondents. Learned Counsel for the Respondents No.2 & 3 has thereafter placed on record the calculation sheet along with some other documents, which are taken on record. There is, however, no controversy that the entire amount, as demanded by the respondents, has since been paid by the petitioner. In this view of the matter, the very basis of resumption proceedings has disappeared. Consequently, the impugned resumption order dated 25.1.2006 is hereby quashed and the allotment of the subject booth is restored in favour of the petitioner. The respondents shall regularize the said allotment in due course of time. The petitioner, however, submits that based upon wrong calculations, the respondents have taken some excess payment from him. Since the respondents have now furnished a complete calculation sheet, the petitioner will be at liberty to represent to the respondent-authorities to specifically point out as to how he has made excess payments. Any such representation shall be considered and disposed of by the respondents within a period of three months from the date of its receipt and a copy of the speaking order shall be conveyed to the petitioner also. Disposed of. No costs. February 11, 2009. [ Surya Kant ] kadyan Judge