Civil Writ Petition No.14864 of 2012 Vs. State of Haryana and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1129108
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnJan-29-2014
AppellantCivil Writ Petition No.14864 of 2012
RespondentState of Haryana and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab & haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.24409 of 2012 date of decision: january 29, 2014 geeta rani and others .....petitioners versus state of haryana and others .....respondents civil writ petition no.14864 of 2012 asha goel .....petitioner versus state of haryana and others .....respondents coram : hon'ble mr.justice surya kant. hon'ble mr.justice amol rattan singh. present : mr.rajesh hooda, advocate and mr.sukhdeep parmar, advocate, for the petitioners.ms.palika monga, dag, haryana. mr.ashwani talwar, advocate, for respondent nos.2 &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) this order shall dispose of cwp nos.24409 and 14864 of 2012 as both these petitions pertain to the issue of 'reservation for women' in the matter of allotment of flats to be built up by the haryana housing board. the petitioners are women applicants whose grievance is that in the draw of lots held on 20.09.2010, the women applicants were considered qua 33% flats only and not against the remaining 67% flats. the above-mentioned practice adopted by the housing board is alleged to be contrary to the law laid down by this court vide order dated 01.05.2012 kumar mohinder 2014.02.25 15:48 i attest to the accuracy of this order chandigarh cwp nos.24409 & 14864 of 2012 [2].passed in cwp no.17910 of 2010 (savita chaudhary versus state of haryana and others (annexure p-5).holding that besides the exclusive reservation provided for them, the women-applicants are entitled to be considered for allotment alongwith male candidates qua the remaining flats as well. it is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the above-cited judgment is sub-judice before the hon'ble supreme court and the next date of hearing is 14.02.2014. having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no necessity to keep this case pending so as to await the decision of the supreme court. suffice it would be to observe that the final view to be taken by the apex court being the law of land, the respondents shall abide by the same. consequently, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction that as and when the matter is decided by the supreme court, the petitioners.if their grievance still remains un-redressed, would represent the respondents-authorities who shall then consider such claim in accordance with the principles to be laid down by the apex court. ordered accordingly. [surya kant].judge january 29, 2014 [amol rattan singh].mohinder judge kumar mohinder 2014.02.25 15:48 i attest to the accuracy of this order chandigarh
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.24409 of 2012 Date of Decision: January 29, 2014 Geeta Rani and others .....Petitioners versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Civil Writ Petition No.14864 of 2012 Asha Goel .....Petitioner versus State of Haryana and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH.

Present : Mr.Rajesh Hooda, Advocate and Mr.Sukhdeep Parmar, Advocate, for the petitioneRs.Ms.Palika Monga, DAG, Haryana.

Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 &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) This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.24409 and 14864 of 2012 as both these petitions pertain to the issue of 'reservation for women' in the matter of allotment of flats to be built up by the Haryana Housing Board.

The petitioners are women applicants whose grievance is that in the draw of lots held on 20.09.2010, the women applicants were considered qua 33% flats only and not against the remaining 67% flats.

The above-mentioned practice adopted by the Housing Board is alleged to be contrary to the law laid down by this Court vide order dated 01.05.2012 Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.25 15:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh CWP Nos.24409 & 14864 of 2012 [2].passed in CWP No.17910 of 2010 (Savita Chaudhary versus State of Haryana and others (Annexure P-5).holding that besides the exclusive reservation provided for them, the women-applicants are entitled to be considered for allotment alongwith male candidates qua the remaining flats as well.

It is not disputed by learned counsel for the petitioners that the above-cited judgment is sub-judice before the Hon'ble Supreme Court and the next date of hearing is 14.02.2014.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties, it appears that there is no necessity to keep this case pending so as to await the decision of the Supreme Court.

Suffice it would be to observe that the final view to be taken by the Apex Court being the law of land, the respondents shall abide by the same.

Consequently, we dispose of these writ petitions with a direction that as and when the matter is decided by the Supreme Court, the petitioneRs.if their grievance still remains un-redressed, would represent the respondents-authorities who shall then consider such claim in accordance with the principles to be laid down by the Apex Court.

Ordered accordingly.

[SURYA KANT].JUDGE January 29, 2014 [AMOL RATTAN SINGH].Mohinder JUDGE Kumar Mohinder 2014.02.25 15:48 I attest to the accuracy of this order Chandigarh