HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH **** CWP No.3308 of 2011(O&M) Date of Decision: 23.02.2011 **** Moti Ram Dubey . . . . Petitioner VS. State of Punjab & Ors. . . . . Respondents **** CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT **** 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? **** Present: Mr. Kanwaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with Mr. Ajay Singla, Advocate for the petitioner ***** SURYA KANT, J. (ORAL) (1). Notice of motion. On the asking of the Court, Ms. Monica Chhibber Sharma, learned DAG Punjab and Mr. Balwinder Singh, Advocate accept notices on behalf of respondent No.1 and respondents No.2 to 4, respectively. In view of the nature of order which I propose to pass, there is no necessity to call upon the respondents to file their counter-reply(ies)/affidavit at this stage. (2). The petitioner seeks a mandamus to direct the GMADA to allot him a plot measuring 250 sq.yards in the newly developed urban estate known as “Aerocity” Mohali. It is averred that as per the advertisement brochure, there CWP No.3308 of 2011.doc - 2 – were 360 plots, measuring 250 sq.yards, meant for open category. (3). It is further averred that in the draw of lots held on 02.10.2010, the draw pertaining to the petitioner has taken place at 1:12:54 PM and the petitioner is shown to be placed at Sr.No.WL-17 in the waiting list. The petitioner has also placed on record a list to demonstrate that 350 candidates were declared eligible for allotment of the above-mentioned plots in the open category as against the 360 plots meant to be allotted in the said category. On this premise, the petitioner asserts his entitlement for allotment of a plot for which he has already served the respondents with a legal notice dated 17.01.2011 (Annexure P3) also. (4). Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and upon consideration of the documents placed on record, it appears imperative upon the respondents to consider the petitioner’s claim after verification of the facts. The Chief Administrator GMADA is accordingly directed to dispose of the claim of the petitioner as contained in the legal notice (Annexure P3) within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order preferably after giving opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. CWP No.3308 of 2011.doc - 3 – (5). In case the petitioner is found entitled to and the plot is allotted, no speaking order need be passed by the respondents. Otherwise, the respondents shall be obligated to pass a reasoned order. (6). Ordered accordingly. Dasti. 23.02.2011 vishal shonkar (S u r y a K a n t) Judge