Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

THAMBU RAM versus HUDA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Thambu Ram v. HUDA & Ors - CWP-6702-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 7071 (12 September 2006)

C.W.P NO.6702 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO.6702 OF 2006

Date of decision : September 12, 2006

* * * * *

Thambu Ram ............Petitioner

Vs.

HUDA & Others ...........Respondents

* * * * *

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA

Present: Mr. S.K Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Ajay Nara, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the order dated March 13, 2006 (Annexure P-9) whereby the application filed by the petitioner for allotment of the plot has been rejected on the ground that he was not eligible for allotment under the Government Servants Reserved Quota (GSRQ) Category. The petitioner claims that he is an employee of Haryana School Education Board and as such was duly eligible under the aforesaid reserved category.

In the written statement filed by the respondents, a specific stand has been taken that the employees of School Education Boards are not eligible for the allotment of the residential plots under the Government Servants Reserved Quota Category. A copy of the communication dated C.W.P NO.6702 OF 2006 2

August 25, 2003 issued by the Chief Administrator, HUDA, Panchkula to the Estate Officer, HUDA, Bhiwani has been appended with the written statement to this effect.

Faced with the aforesaid difficulty, learned counsel appearing for the petitioner wishes to withdraw the present petition with a liberty to the petitioner to challenge the communication dated August 25, 2003 by filing a fresh petition. The present writ petition is disposed of with the aforesaid liberty claimed by the petitioner.

For a period of 4 weeks from today, the interim direction dated May 2, 2006 in favour of the petitioner shall continue to operate and the plot which had been earmarked for the petitioner shall not be realloted to another person.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

September 12, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu JUDGE


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.