High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/23274/2015disposed of

Inderjeet v. State Of Haryana And ORS.

2016-09-26Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.23274 of 2015 Date of Decision: September 26, 2016 Inderjeet ....Petitioner versus The State of Haryana and others

...Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN *****

Present:

Mr. Suresh Kumar Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.

Mr. Ravindra Singh, Advocate for Mr. Munish Kapila, Advocate for respondent No.5.

***** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) 1.

Through the instant writ petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of 200 sq. feet build up residential flat No.402 allotted to the petitioner in draw out of 59 flats meant for Economically Weaker Section (EWS) in Group Housing Colony located within HUDA's Developed Sector 20 (Pocket-B) of Panchkula and to restrict the respondents to allot the said flat to any other person.

Sonia Kinra 2016.09.27 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No.23274 of 2015 -2- ----- 2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that the petitioner be permitted to approach respondent No.4 by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation along with the supporting material, however, a direction be issued to respondent No.4 to decide the same in a time bound manner after affording an opportunity of hearing to him in accordance with law.

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by granting liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation along with the supporting material to substantiate his claim as made in the present writ petition before respondent No.4. However, It is clarified that in the event of representation being filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by respondent No.4 in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to him within a period of two months thereafter. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) September 26, 2016 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No Sonia Kinra 2016.09.27 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh