CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2009 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. DATE OF DECISION: July 15, 2009. Parties Name M/S Sarla Handicrafts Pvt. Ltd. ..PETITIONER VERSUS HUDA and others ...RESPONDENTS CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH PRESENT: Mr. Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms. Neena Madan, Advocate, for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr. J.P.Bhatt, Advocate, for respondent No. 3. JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral) Order. This order will dispose of six Civil Writ Petitions No. 2974, 3873, 3886, 3944, 8621 and 8616, all of the year 2009, as common question of law and facts is involved in all these cases. For facility of dictating order, facts are being taken from CWP No. 2974 of 2009. Petitioner has filed this writ petition with a prayer that a writ of mandamus be issued directing the respondents to allot a plot measuring 300 Sq. Mtrs. for setting up a dyeing unit in Sector 29, Part II, Panipat. It is case CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2009 -2- of the petitioner that with a view to control pollution, the State of Haryana prepared a plan to shift all the existing dyeing units to part II, Sector 29, Panipat. Under that policy, a plot was allotted to the petitioner. The petitioner deposited the earnest money, however, thereafter it failed to make any further payment. The plot was resumed and allotment was cancelled. It is case of the petitioner that similarly situated dyeing units came to this Court laying challenge to the cancellation of plots allotted earlier. CWP No. 971 of 2008 was allowed by this Court on December 11, 2008. In response to directions issued by this Court in that order, plots allotted to units, similarly situated were restored. When prayer made by the petitioner was not accepted, this writ petition was filed. This Court is of the view that the case of the petitioner is squarely covered, in its favour, as per order passed by a Division Bench of this Court in C.W.P. No. 971 of 2008 (M/S Acfoli INC v. The Haryana Urban Development Authority and others). Vide that order, following directions were issued : “As a sequel to the above discussion, both the petitions are disposed of with the following directions:- i) Within a period of one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order, respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall reallot Plot No. 190, Sector 29, Part- II, Panipat, measuring 2100 square meters to the petitioner (in CWP No. 971 of 2008) and Plot No. 239, Sector 29, Part -II, Panipat, measuring 5000 square meters, to the other petitioner ( in CWP No. 1469 of 2008) at the current rates as approved by CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2009 -3- the respondents. We make it clear that the petitioners would not be permitted to ask for plot of a bigger size irrespective of the recommendation made by the Board. ii)Letter of demand issued by respondent Nos. 1 and 2 shall clearly mention the cost of the plot, area of the plot and other usual terms and conditions iii)The petitioners shall pay 50% of the total price in lump sum within a period of two months from the date of receipt of demand raised by respondent Nos. 1 and 2. iv)The Regular Letter of Allotment shall be issued on deposit of 50% price of the plot price in lump sum by the petitioners. The needful shall be done within a period of one month from the date of deposit, subject to further condition to make payment of balance amount as per usual terms and conditions of respondent Nos. 1 and 2. v) If the petitioners fail to deposit the 50% of the price in lump- sum as per the demand raised by the respondent Nos 1 and 2 within the stipulated period then the writ petitions shall be deemed to be dismissed without entertaining any further correspondence in that regard. “ Counsel for the petitioner states that the petitioner is ready to purchase a plot at the prevailing market price. If that is so, this Court feels that relief cannot be denied to the petitioner in view of directions issued by this Court. Counsel for the respondent has failed to show anything, which may show that case of the petitioner is not covered by the ratio of judgment, mentioned above. He has only stated that S.L.P. filed by the CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 2974 OF 2009 -4- Department is pending in the Hon'ble Supreme Court and stay qua initiation of contempt proceedings has been granted. Be that as it may, in view of ratio of the judgment in C.W.P. No. 971 of 2008, these writ petitions are disposed of in the same terms as in that case. The authorities are directed to grant relief to the petitioner within two months from the date of receipt of copy of this order. July 15, 2009 ( Jasbir Singh ) DKC Judge