Saroop Singh v. State Of Punjab & ORS

-1IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision: 23.8.2017 Saroop Singh ....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondents.

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL. HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMIT RAWAL.

PRESENT: Mr. Nitesh Singhi, Advocate for the petitioner. AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

1.

In this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, the petitioner has prayed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the allotment of industrial plot measuring 1000 square yards in favour of respondent No.4 in IT City, Mohali under the category of Freedom Fighter. Further, a writ of mandamus has been sought directing respondents No.1 to 3 to allot the plot in question to the petitioner as he stands at Serial No.1 of the waiting list. 2.

Government of India as well as Government of Punjab for the welfare of the freedom fighters made reservations policy which were also adopted by the Punjab Urban Development Authority (PUDA) and Greater Mohali Area Development Authority (GMADA). Respondent No.3 launched a Scheme (Annexure P-1) for allotment of residential and commercial sites maintained the reservation policy. The petitioner is a freedom fighter and had availed no benefit under the reservation category

-2for the allotment of residential or commercial plot. Respondent No.2 invited applications for allotment of 200 industrial plots in IT City, Mohali vide Scheme dated 3.10.2016 (Annexure P-2). In pursuance thereto, the petitioner applied for the industrial plot by depositing the required amount vide acknowledgment dated 28.10.2016 (Annexure P-3). As per the draw of lots, the name of the petitioner figured at Serial No.1 of the waiting list (Annexure P-4) under the freedom fighter category. The petitioner submitted the requisite documents and fulfilled the formalities of the GMADA. On coming to know that respondent No.4 had been allotted a plot under freedom fighter category as he had already availed the benefits of reservation by taking plot No.38, Street No.12, Block G, Eco City Phase I, he moved an application dated 12.1.

2017 to the Chief Administrator, GMADA who directed respondent No.3 to look into the matter, but to no effect. Thereafter, the petitioner made a complaint/representation dated 18.5.2017 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2 for cancelling the allotment of industrial plot measuring 1000 square yards in IT City, Mohali in favour of respondent No.4 and for allotment of plot in question to him, but no response has been received till date. Hence, the present writ petition. 3.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that for the relief claimed in the writ petition, the petitioner has sent a complaint/ representation dated 18.5.2017 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.2, but no action has so far been taken thereon.

4.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, we dispose of the present petition by directing respondent No.2 to take a decision on the complaint/representation dated 18.5.2017 (Annexure P-5),

-3in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and respondent No.4 within a period of one month from the date of receipt of the certified copy of the order. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE August 23, 2017 (AMIT RAWAL) gbs JUDGE Whether Speaking/Reasoned Yes/No Whether Reportable Yes/No