CWP-23076-2026 -1- IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (118) CWP-23076-2026 Date of Decision: - 28.07.2026 Maha Singh ....Petitioner Versus Haryana Shehri Vikas Pradhikaran and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present:- Mr. Gobind Dhanda, Advocate, and Mr. Iqbal Roshan, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G., Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. In the present writ petition, the following prayers have been made in the headnote: - “Civil Writ Petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of 'Certiorari for quashing impugned letters/orders dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent no.3 and 30.06.2026 (Annexure P/6) issued respondent no.2, whereby the respondents no.2 & 3 has taken action to refund the earnest money deposited by petitioner by cancelling the e- auction of Booth No.16, Sector 7, Sonipat; AND For issuance of a writ in the nature of 'Mandamus' directing the respondents to issue allotment letter regarding Booth No.16, Sector 7, Sonipat and allow the petitioner to deposit the remaining amount of e-auction and issuing/providing the necessary information i.e. NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-23076-2026 -2- ID and Password for operating e-account on PPM portal; AND For ad-interim prayer that this Hon'ble Court may kindly be pleased to refrain the respondents to take any action in pursuance of impugned letters/orders dated 03.01.2024 (Annexure P/4) issued by respondent no.3 and 30.06.2026 (Annexure P/6) issued respondent no.2 and further respondents be restrained from re-e- auctioning the booth in question, during the pendency of the present writ petition; AND/OR For issuance of any other appropriate writ, order or direction, which this Hon'ble Court may deem fit in the facts and circumstances of the present case” 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that the petitioner had participated in e-auction which took place on 04.10.2019 and had deposited security money and was the highest bidder in the said e-auction qua the booth No.16, Sector 7, Sonipat and had deposited 10% amount of the bid money on 05.10.2019 well within time. It is further submitted that the respondent authorities neither issued the property ID and password nor the allotment letter and on repeated visits made, he was informed that there was a stay order on the said booth in question and that subsequently the same would be allotted to the petitioner after the stay order is vacated. It is stated that the petitioner had learnt that the stay order has been vacated but the respondent authorities instead of issuing an allotment letter, had sought to refund the money. It is submitted that for the grievances of the petitioner, he has given a representation dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) to respondent No.3 and at this stage, he would be satisfied in case the said representation is considered by NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement CWP-23076-2026 -3- respondent No.3 in a time bound manner and if after considering the same, in case, the plea raised by the petitioner is found to be meritorious, then, appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner. 3. Learned counsel appearing for the respondents has submitted that respondent No.3 would consider the said representation dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) and decide the same within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order. 4. Keeping in view the above-said facts and circumstances, the present petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 to consider the said representation dated 04.03.2024 (Annexure P-5) of the petitioner and decide the same, in accordance with law, as expeditiously as possible, preferably, within a period of three months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order and in case, after considering the same, the plea of the petitioner is found to be meritorious, then, the appropriate relief be granted to the petitioner. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not opined on the merits of the case and respondent No.3 would consider and decide the matter independently, in accordance with law. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE July 28, 2026 naresh.k Whether reasoned/speaking? Yes Whether reportable? No NARESH KUMAR 2026.07.29 10:28 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document/judgement