Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Col.Baldev Singh Sekhon And Others vs State Of Punjab And Others on 16 January, 2013

Author: Surya Kant

Bench: Surya Kant

    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH


                   Civil Writ Petition No.826 of 2013
                   Date of Decision : January 16, 2013



Col.Baldev Singh Sekhon and others                .....Petitioners
       versus
State of Punjab and others                        .....Respondents


CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
        HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE R.P.NAGRATH.


Present : Ms.Madhu Dayal, Advocate, for the petitioners.
          Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Additional AG, Punjab,
          for respondent Nos.1 & 2.
          Mr.Amit Rawal, Senior Advocate with
          Mr.Manvinder Singh, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
                       -.-

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?
                       ---
Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

Notice of motion.

Mr.Manoj Bajaj, Additional Advocate General, Punjab, accepts notice on behalf of respondent Nos.1 & 2 and Mr.Manvinder Singh, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.

Let two copies each of the writ petition be supplied to the learned State counsel as well as learned counsel for respondent No.3 during the course of day failing which the order shall be automatically recalled and the writ petition shall be deemed to have been dismissed for non-prosecution.

In view of the nature of order which we propose to pass, there appears to be no necessity to seek reply-affidavit from the respondents at this stage.

The petitioners are owners of industrial plots in the Industrial Focal Points, Phase VIII-A and VIII-B in SAS Nagar Mohali. They seek a mandamus to direct the respondents to allot them residential plots as per the Industrial Housing Policy floated by the State Government vide letter dated 26.12.2001 (Annexure P-

3) which, according to the petitioners, has been duly approved by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Jasbir Singh Chhabra and others versus State of Punjab and others 2010 (4) SCC 192.

In sum and substance, the petitioners' case is that being allottees of industrial plots where their respective industrial units are functional, the respondents, in terms of their policy decision, are obligated to allot residential plots to the petitioners to enable the petitioners to provide residential accommodation to their workers/ employees. The documents on record suggest long correspondence between the parties and in this process, the petitioners have served the authorities with a legal notice dated 22.1.2012 (Annexure P-13) to which even a reminder was sent. It further appears that some selective information has been given to the petitioners under Right to Information Act about the policy decision but no firm decision appears to have been taken by the respondents or communicated to the petitioners as to whether or not the Industrial Housing Policy is to give effect and if not, why?

In these circumstances, we are of the view that it is imperative upon the respondents to take some decision with reference to the petitioners' claim and communicate it by way of a speaking order as early as possible but not later than three months from the date of receiving a certified copy of this order.

Ordered accordingly.

Let a copy of this order be given dasti to Mr.Manoj CWP No.826 of 2013 [3] Bajaj, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, for information and necessary compliance.

Dasti.

                                                        $




                                              (SURYA KANT)
                                                  JUDGE

                                                        $




January 16, 2013                              (R.P.NAGRATH)
  Mohinder                                            JUDGE