CWP No.16127 of 1989 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.16127 of 1989 DATE OF DECISION: March 17, 2011 JASBIR SINGH ...PETITIONER VERSUS PUNJAB HOUSING DEVELOPMENT BOARD ...RESPONDENT CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K.KANNAN. 1. Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgement? No 2. To be referred to the reporters or not? Yes 3. Whether the judgement should be reported in the digest? Yes ---- PRESENT: NONE. K.KANNAN, J.(ORAL) 1. The writ petition is for direction to the respondent-Board to allot HIG type house to the petitioner against registration of the petitioner for which money had been deposited in the year 1981 and subsequently in the year 1989. 2. The contention in defence as regards the merits by the respondent was that in terms of the offer made through the communication dated 8.9.1981, the Board had expressed that three-storeyed HIG Flats were available in Phase-IX at SAS Nagar and the tentative cost of the flat would be `1,54,403/- and that 25% of the cost + one installment amounting to `10,142/- was payable within 30 days from the date of allotment and that further the residuary cost would be recovered in monthly installments spread over a period of 13 years. This communication sought to elicit a letter of consent within a period of 30 days from the date of issue of the letter dated 8.9.1986. The statement was that the petitioner did not send his CWP No.16127 of 1989 -2- consent and therefore, the HIG house was not allotted. It was, therefore, the contention that the petitioner had abandoned the right of allotment by not extending his consent. 3. There is no representation for both the sides and it is not possible to gather information on whether the petitioner could be awarded any fresh allotment in any new scheme. In the written statement it is stated that as and when any new scheme is floated, the petitioner could make appropriate application if he was suitable for such a claim. 4. The petitioner cannot seek for allotment without even making available an information whether any flat is still available for allotment. 5. The writ petition is dismissed. March 17, 2011 (K.KANNAN) Gulati JUDGE