CWP-27442-2025 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH *** 1. CWP-27442-2025 Sandeep ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 2. CWP-3264-2026 Ram Niwas ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 3. CWP-3287-2026 Amit ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 4. CWP-3335-2026 Amarnath Verma ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 5. CWP-5418-2026 Dharmender Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 2 6. CWP-5419-2026 Bala Devi ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 7. CWP-6995-2026 Gagan ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 8. CWP-7165-2026 Vijay Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 9. CWP-9977-2026 Ramrati Devi ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 10. CWP-38620-2025 Gaurav ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 11. CWP-11975-2026 Rajesh Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 3 12. CWP-12028-2026 Naveen ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 13. CWP-12420-2026 Kamla Devi ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 14. CWP-15622-2026 Sunita ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 15. CWP-15623-2026 Chand Kishor ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 16. CWP-18710-2026 Lajja and another ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 17. CWP-16243-2026 Parwati ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 4 18. CWP-16252-2026 Sunita ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 19. CWP-16791-2026 Mukesh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 20. CWP-17155-2026 Babli and others ... Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 21. CWP-14514-2026 Suman ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 22. CWP-17795-2026 Rekha ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 23. CWP-27158-2025 Kapoor Singh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 5 24. CWP-14565-2026 Kamlesh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 25. CWP-17257-2026 Vinod Kumar ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents 26. CWP-13285-2026 Rajesh ... Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ... Respondents Date of decision : 06.07.2026 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr.Vishal Mittal, Advocate in CWP-5418-2026 & 5419-2026; Mr.Mrinal Dewan, Advocate for Mr.G.S. Sidhu, Advocate in CWP-27442-2025, 16791-2026, 16252-2026, 16243-2026, 17257-2026, 14565-2026; Mr.Ishaan Bhardwaj, Advocate in CWP-3264-2026, 3287-2026 & 3335-2026; Mr. Rajesh K. Sheoran, Advocate and Mr.Hardeep Singh Poonia, Advocate in CWP-6995-2026; Mr.Parshant Sethi, Advocate in CWP-38620-2025, 11975-2026, 12420-2026, 12028-2026, 14514-2026, 18710-2026, 15623-2026 and 15622-2026, Mr.Sukhbir Singh Goyat, Advocate in CWP-7165-2026, Mr.Shokeen Singh Verma, Advocate in CWP-17155-2026; Mr.Abhishek K. Premi, Advocate in CWP-9977-2026; Mr.Vivek Sheoran, Advocate in CWP-27158-2025, Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate (through V.C.) DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 6 in CWP-17795-2026; and Mr.Harsh Vardhan Shehrawat, Advocate in CWP-13285-2026 for the petitioners. Mr.Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A. G. Haryana. VIKAS BAHL, J.(ORAL) 1. The present order would dispose of 26 writ petitions as common issues of law and facts arises in all the said cases. 2. The undisputed facts in the present set of cases are that the petitioners herein (except the petitioner in CWP-7165-2026) are allottees under the scheme launched by the Housing Board Haryana for allotment of flats to families Below Poverty Line (BPL) and Economically Weaker Sections (EWS). The petitioners in various writ petitions had applied for allotment and after being successful in the draw of lots, they were allotted flats. In most of the cases, the possession has been handed over to the petitioners. It is not disputed that each of the petitioners had rights in the flats which were allotted in their favour. Even the petitioner in CWP-7165- 2026 titled as “Vijay Kumar vs. State of Haryana and others” was not the original allottee but subsequently by virtue of transfer letter dated 13.01.2023 issued by the Estate Manager, Housing Board Haryana, Gurugram, was transferred the flat in question. 3. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that without giving any show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the impugned orders cancelling the allotment in favour of the petitioners have been passed. In support of their arguments, learned counsel for the DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 7 petitioners have relied upon the order dated 03.07.2026 passed by this Court in CWP-19670-2026 titled as “Gian Chand and another vs. State of Haryana and others”. The relevant portion of the said order is reproduced hereinbelow:- “2. Learned counsel for the petitioners has submitted that in the present case, respondent No.2 had issued an advertisement and invited applications for registration of 1719 EWS category residential units being built for BPL and EWS families and the last date for registration was 19.09.2018 which was extended up to 09.10.2018. It is submitted that the said units were measuring 355 square feet and had approximate cost of Rs. 85 lakh each and BPL families were to be granted preference in the allotment scheme. It is further submitted that more than 8000 applications were received under the scheme and on 21.01.2019, the draw of lots for 1719 flats was held for the applicants belonging to the BPL families and the petitioners were declared successful in the said draw of lots and thereafter letters dated 25.02.2019 were issued in favour of both the petitioners. It is further submitted that petitioner No.2 was further successful in a subsequent draw of lots dated 09.02.2021 and after making requisite payment was allotted Flat No.2778/SF in Sector 67 Gurugram by respondent No.2. 3. It is argued that without issuing any show cause notice and without giving any opportunity of hearing to the petitioners and without the petitioners having violated any terms or conditions of the allotment/advertisement, the respondents have, vide letters dated 28.07.2025 and 30.07.2025 (Annexures P-7 and P-8 respectively), cancelled the flat allotment in favour of the petitioners. It is submitted that the said act of the respondents is in violation of the principles of natural justice and deserves to be set aside on the said ground alone. It is submitted that the petitioners have not committed any illegality and at any rate, at least a show cause notice and an opportunity of hearing should have been granted before passing the impugned orders. Learned counsel for the petitioners has further relied upon the various orders passed by the coordinate Division Benches in various cases which have been annexed as Annexures P-16 to P-18 in which in similar circumstances, the Court was DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 8 pleased to issue notice of motion and also grant interim protection. 4. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that in the present case the allotments had to be cancelled in view of the inquiry held in pursuance of a PIL filed. 5. On a pointed query raised by this Court, it has fairly been stated that no individual show cause notice or an opportunity of hearing has been given to the petitioners before passing of the impugned orders. It could not be disputed before this Court that the orders dated 28.07.2025 and 30.07.2025 were passed without issuance of any show cause notice or without granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. It is a matter of settled law that any order entailing civil consequences should be passed after the issuance of show cause notice and grant of opportunity of hearing, which have not been done in the present case. 6. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances, the present writ petition is partly allowed and the impugned orders dated 28.07.2025 and 30.07.2025 are set aside. It would however be open to the respondents to institute fresh proceedings in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders after issuance of show cause notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The present order would not be construed as an expression on the merits of the case as the impugned orders have been set aside solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice.” 4. Learned counsel for the petitioners have submitted that the case of the petitioners, on the aspect of there being violation of principles of natural justice, is similar to the case of the petitioners in the abovesaid writ petition. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioners have further highlighted that in the interim orders passed in the present bunch of the writ petitions, the argument raised on behalf of the petitioners to the effect that the allotments have been cancelled without giving opportunity of hearing or DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 9 issuing show cause notice has been duly noticed. The order dated 15.09.2025 passed by the Co-ordinate Division Bench of this Court in CWP-27442-2025, which has been highlighted, is reproduced herienbelow:- Present: Mr.Gurdarshan S. Sidhu, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was successful in the draw of lot held on 09.02.2021 and had been allotted a dwelling unit (flat) under BPL category by the respondents on 13.05.2021 (Annexure P-2). He had paid more than half of the consideration amount and is willing to pay the remaining amount in installments. The possession certificate has been delivered to him on 07.10.2022 (Annexure P-3) but later, the respondents have cancelled the allotment on 28.07.2025 (Annexure P-4) without issuance of show cause notice or affording an opportunity of personal hearing to the petitioner. Issue notice to the respondents. At the asking of the Court, Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and prays for time to file reply. List on 14.10.2025. The parties shall maintain status quo till the next date of hearing. 15.09.2025” Similar orders have been passed in the other writ petitions also. 6. Learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that the allotment had to be cancelled in view of the vigilance enquiry held in pursuance of the orders passed in the PIL as certain irregularities were found. 7. However, on a pointed query raised by this Court, learned counsel for the respondents could not dispute the fact that no individual DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment CWP-27442-2025 10 show cause notice or opportunity of hearing was granted to the petitioners before passing the impugned orders. 8. Keeping in view the above said facts and circumstances, moreso, the fact that the action against the petitioners is in violation of the principles of natural justice and that it is a matter of settled law that any order entailing civil consequences should be passed after granting due opportunity of hearing to the petitioners, the present writ petitions are partly allowed and the impugned orders in all the cases are set aside. It would however be open to the respondents to institute fresh proceedings in accordance with law and to pass appropriate orders after issuance of show cause notice and granting an opportunity of hearing to the petitioners. The present order would not be construed as an expression of opinion on the merits of the case as the impugned orders have been set aside solely on the ground of violation of the principles of natural justice. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 06, 2026. Davinder Kumar Whether speaking / reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No DAVINDER KUMAR 2026.07.08 09:42 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order / judgment