High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 August, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Gurcharan Singh vs State Of Punjab And Another on 26 August, 2009
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH.

            CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13093 OF 2009

            DATE OF DECISION : August 26, 2009.

                   Parties Name

Gurcharan Singh

                                     ...PETITIONER
      VERSUS

State of Punjab and another

                                     ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH


PRESENT: Mr. S.K. Sandhir,
         Advocate, for the petitioner.


JASBIR SINGH, J. (oral)

ORDER:

This writ petition has been filed with a prayer that writ of

mandamus be issued to respondent No. 2 to consider name of the petitioner

for allotment of a plot out of the plots reserved for the members of the

scheduled caste.

It is apparent from the records and not disputed that as on

today, no scheme has been framed by respondent No. 2, in which a plot can

be allotted to the petitioner. Counsel for the petitioner states that as per

Punjab Town Improvement (Utilization of Land and Allotment of Plots)

Rules, 1993, as and when scheme is framed, the authorities are supposed to

reserve plots for members of the scheduled caste. It is further contention of

counsel for the petitioner that earlier in the year 1982, petitioner moved an

application and the same was rejected without taking note of the aforesaid
CIVIL WRIT PETITION NO. 13093 OF 2009 -2-

Rules. Then the petitioner came to this Court by filing CWP No. 15505 of

1999 with a prayer that directions be issued to the respondents to allot him a

plot. When the matter came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this

Court on November 4, 1999, counsel for the petitioner made a request that

he be allowed to withdraw that writ petition with a view to make a

representation for allotment of a plot in 375 Acres Development Scheme,

out of the plots meant for reserve category. The request was accepted and

the petitioner was allowed to withdraw the said writ petition with a hope

that the concerned authority of the Trust would decide representation, if

any, made by the petitioner, within one month of its submission. Counsel

for the petitioner states that representation was made thereafter, however,

the same has not been decided. At this belated stage, this petition cannot be

entertained. If the petitioner was aggrieved, he should have come to this

Court at an earlier point of time. No case is made out for interference.

Dismissed.

( Jasbir Singh )
Judge

August 26, 2009.

DKC