R.S. Mongia, J. - (1.) The applicants in this Review Application, who were the writ-petitioners, had filed C.W.P. No. 2025 of 1981 in this Court, for the issuance of an appropriate Writ, direction or order to the respondent Union Territory Administration, Chandigarh, for allotment of industrial plots in the Industrial Area of Union Territory, Chandigarh. The writ petition was allowed by a learned Single Judge on 19th August, 1982, by passing the following order:- "Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case I direct the respondent authorities to start allotting 10-marla and 5-marla plots available with them to the persons on the waiting list in the order in which their names exist on the waiting list. Similarly they would allot 'likely to become available' plots as soon as those are available in the manner indicated above. Thus this petition stands disposed of with no order as to costs." Letters Patent Appeal (L.P.A. No. 1372 of 1982) filed by the U.T. Administration, Chandigarh, was allowed by a Division Bench on 29th January, 1991. While allowing the appeal, it was observed as under:- "After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we find that there is a considerable force in the contention of the learned counsel for the appellants. Just being on the waiting list, the writ petitioners did not get any right of allotment. The limited right, if any was that if any of the plots which were allotted to any of the successful person by draw of lots, was surrendered or any of the applicant was not found eligible then that could be offered to them according to their Serial number on the waiting list. They had no right to ask for allotment of plots which became available with the Administration later on or were even available at the time the draw of lots were drawn, but those plots had not been offered for allotment at all. With respect to the learned Single Judge, we are unable to agree that the petitioners could be offered 5 maria plots which had become available for allotment later on or were made available at a later stage for allotment though these were in existence at the time when the earlier draw of lots were drawn but were not put in the draw of lots for allotment. For the reasons recorded above, we allow this appeal, set aside the judgment of the learned Single Judge and dismiss the writ petition. However, there will be no order as to costs. We may, however, observe that since the writ petitioners had won the case before the learned Single Judge and in spits of there being no stay, the writ petitioners were not given the plots, the cases of the writ petitioners may be considered sympathetically for future allotment of industrial plots in accordance with law."
(2.) The writ petitioners (respondents in L.P.A.) tiled Special Leave Petition (Civil) No. 11290 of 1991 in the Hon'ble Supreme Court. The S.L.P. was disposed of the 18th July, 1991, by passing the following orders ; - "Counsel for the petitioners state that there is mistake in the appreciation of facts by the High Court. If the petitioners are advised, they may move the High Court for review or rectification. With these observations, the S.L.Ps. are disposed of."
(3.) This Review Application was filed for recalling the judgment, dated 29th January, 1991. It has been submitted on behalf of the applicant-writ petitioners that there was total number of 109 plots of 10 Marla size available tor allotment, for which there were 129 applicants and when draw of lots was drawn on 9th October, 1979, only 109 lots were drawn and no waiting list was prepared by the Chandigarh Administration. Further, the case put forth is that in fact the names of the present applicants were amongst the 109 successful applicants in the draw of lots and since no more than 109 lots were drawn. The question of preparing any waiting list did not arise and it was incorrect on the part of the respondents to say that the applicants' names were on the waiting list.;