Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUBHASH CHANDER MALIK versus U.T. CHANDIGARH & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Subhash Chander Malik v. U.T. Chandigarh & Ors - CWP-15085-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 9728 (2 November 2006)

C.W.P. No. 15085 of 2006 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No. 15085 of 2006

Date of Decision: November 6, 2006

Subhash Chander Malik

.....Petitioner

Vs.

U.T. Chandigarh and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR.
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M.S. BEDI.

Present:- Mr. Kamla Malik, Advocate with Mr. S.C. Malik, petitioner in person.

Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate with

Mr. Vishal Sodhi, Advocate

for respondents No.1 and 2.

Mr. R.K.Dhiman, Advocate

for respondent No.3.

-.-

M.M. KUMAR. J. (ORAL)

Mr. Anupam Gupta, learned counsel for respondents No.1 and 2, on instructions from Ravinder Sharma, Superintendent, House Allotment C.W.P. No. 15085 of 2006 [2]

Committee, right at the outset has made a statement that ground floor of House No.1018, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, earlier occupied by Mr. R.S.

Kundu is available since Mr. Kundu has expired and the same is offered to the petitioner. Mr. S.C.Malik, the petitioner accept this offer and states that the same be allotted to him by cancelling his earlier allotment in respect of House No. 1006, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, allotted to him on September 14,

2006. There is no objection on the part of respondent No.3 to the aforementioned course being adopted.

In view of the above, we direct that respondents No.1 and 2 may allot the ground floor of house No. 1018, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, to the petitioner, as agreed between the parties. The house allotted to the petitioner, namely, House No. 1006, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh, on September 14, 2006 shall stand cancelled on the allotment of House No.

1018, Sector 41-B, Chandigarh. The needful shall be done within a period of two weeks.

In view of the above, the petition is accordingly disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

(M.M.KUMAR)

JUDGE

November 6, 2006 (M.M.S.BEDI)

sanjay 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.