IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH CWP No. 4009 of 2011 Date of decision November 28, 2011 Shiv Raman Gaur ....... Petitioner Versus U.T. Administration and others ........Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN Present:- Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate and Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Senior Standing Counsel for U.T. Administration and Arjun Shakula and Mr. Harkesh Manuja, Advocate **** 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? K. Kannan, J (oral). 1. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that the writ petition has become infructuous since the house allotment has been made. The same be disposed of as such. 2. As ordered. 3. The writ petition is disposed of as having been rendered infructuous. (K. KANNAN) JUDGE November 28 , 2011 archana