IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH C.W.P.No.11571 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 22.02.2011 Rajinder Singh Angi ....Petitioner(s) vs. State of Punjab and others ....Respondent(s) *** CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJAN GOGOI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH *** Present:- Mr.Paul S.Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner. Ms.Madhu Dayal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents No.1 and 2. Mr.D.V.Sharma, Sr.Advocate with Mr.Harit Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3. *** Ranjan Gogoi, CJ. (Oral) This writ petition has been filed seeking a direction to the respondents to conduct a draw of lots for allotment of flats in pursuance of the Scheme circulated which has been enclosed as Annexure P-1 to the writ petition. The petitioner had applied pursuant to an advertisement issued in the year 2003 inviting applications from the general public for allotment of houses, through draw of lots. It may be noticed that 85 LIG flats were covered by the Scheme (Annexure P-1). The Greater Ludhiana Area Development Authority, Ludhiana (for short 'GLADA') (Respondent No.3) has filed a written statement dated 5.9.2010 wherein it has been stated that in a PIL bearing CWP No.17883 of 2009 “Danga Perrat Welfare Society (Punjab), Ludhiana (Regd.) vs. State of C.W.P.No.11571 of 2010 -2- Punjab and others” an affidavit was filed by the State of Punjab informing the Court about a decision of the State to allot the 85 LIG flats in question to eligible riot victims. In view of the aforesaid stand taken by the State of Punjab in the aforesaid CWP, the PIL filed seeking directions for allotment of flats to riot affected victims was disposed of in terms of the stand taken on behalf of the State. At the hearing, Sh.Sharma, learned counsel for respondent No.3 has submitted that out of the 85 flats, 79 number of flats have been allotted to riot victims and the remaining 6 flats are in the same process which will be completed shortly. It is further submitted by Sh.Sharma, learned Sr. Counsel that the aforesaid 6 flats are in occupation of the riot victims, which occupation is required to be regularized by completion of the above process. The above facts would go to show that none of the 85 flats covered by the Scheme, Annexure P-1, for allotment of which the petitioner had filed an application, are presently available. The State Government had taken a decision that instead of allotting the flats to the general category allottees after draw of lots, the same should be allotted to the riot victims. The process of allotment pursuant to the said decision is almost over. The power of the State to take the policy decision to allot the flats to riot victims instead of proceeding with the draw amongst the members of the general public, cannot be denied. Such decisions fall within the realm of Government policy and would be within the jurisdiction and competence of the appropriate Authority of the State Government. Learned Counsel for the petitioner has vehemently argued that C.W.P.No.11571 of 2010 -3- 6 flats in respect of which formal orders of allotment/regularization have not been passed till date, should be offered to members of the general public like the petitioner. No such order is possible, particularly when the government policy is in respect of all the 85 LIG flats covered by the Scheme (Annexure P-1). For the aforesaid reasons, no relief can be afforded to the petitioner. The petitioner may submit an application for return of the deposit made by him, which if filed, will be attended to by the concerned Authority forthwith and without any delay. Writ petition, therefore, is dismissed, however, with no order as to costs. ( RANJAN GOGOI ) CHIEF JUSTICE February 22, 2011 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE