IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P. No. 212 of 2007 DATE OF DECISION: November 10, 2008 Suresh Kumar Gulati …Petitioner Versus State of Punjab and others …Respondents CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE JORA SINGH Present: Mr. Sunil Chadha, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent Nos. 2 and 3. Mr. Om Pal Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 4. 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? M.M. KUMAR, J. 1, The petitioner had applied for allotment of a plot measuring 250 Sq. Yds. with the respondents in the year 1981 and sent adequate amount of money by draft dated 18.4.1981. He filed a complaint against respondent Nos. 2 and 3 before the District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, under the Consumer Protection Act, 1986, on the ground that there was deficiency in C.W.P. No. 212 of 2007 service rendered by the aforementioned respondents, inasmuch as, an amount of Rs. 1,375/- deposited by the petitioner was refunded on 27.1.2000. The District Consumer Disputes Redressal Forum, Ludhiana, vide order dated 19.1.2001 directed the petitioner to send back the Refund Voucher of Rs. 1,375/- to the respondents and further directions were issued to the respondents to consider the name of the petitioner in the next draw of lot for allotment of plot measuring 200 Sq. Yds. Accordingly, the name of the petitioner was included in the next draw of lot with his old registration number 1524. In the draw of lot, held on 13.10.2003, 159 plots were to be allotted. The applicant having Registration No. 1524 had remained successful but the petitioner was not allotted the plot. It has been claimed that once Registration No. 1524 has been allocated to the petitioner and in the draw of lot the same number was successful, therefore, the petitioner is entitled to be allotted a plot. 2. In response to the legal notice issued by the petitioner, the respondents have clarified vide letter dated 28.9.2006 that the name of the petitioner was put in the draw of lot held on 13.10.2003 and the Registration No. of the petitioner was 1524. It has further been clarified that the Punjab Urban Development Authority had invited applications in August 2003 for allotment of plots. In response to the aforementioned Smt. Surinder Kaur wife of Shri Lahore Singh had also applied on 4.8.2003 on Application Form No. 1524. Smt. Surinder Kaur had remained successful in respect of Plot No. 25, Phase-III, Dugri Road, Ludhiana, against her Application No. 1524. 2 C.W.P. No. 212 of 2007 3. A written statement by respondent Nos. 2 an 3 has been filed where the aforementioned stand has been reiterated. It has been clarified that the petitioner had old application number which was similar to the one given to Smt. Surinder Kaur, who had applied on 4.8.2003. It is not only the registration number or the form number alone which is mentioned on the slip concerning draw of lot, it also carries the category, name of the applicant, father’s/husband’s name and size of the plot and that there was no confusion. 4. In order to satisfy ourselves regarding the claim made by the petitioner, we have summoned the original record and perused the same. We are satisfied that the petitioner was not successful in the draw of lot and it was Smt. Surinder Kaur who had succeeded although the number appearing on her application form was the same as was the old registration number assigned to the petitioner. Therefore, the writ petition fails and the same is dismissed. (M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE (JORA SINGH) November 10, 2008 JUDGE Pkapoor 3