The petitioner challenged a decision. The court disposed of the petition as infructuous because the milling capacity of the petitioner's firm had been revised and reassessed to two tonnes per hour.
The petition was disposed of as infructuous.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
C.W.P NO.16853 OF 2006
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.W.P NO.16853 OF 2006
Date of decision : December 04, 2006
Ashok Kumar ............Petitioner
Vs.
State of Punjab and others ...........Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S BHALLA
Present: Mr. S.K Jain, Advocate for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 to 6.
Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)
Learned counsel appearing for respondents no. 1 to 6 has brought to the notice of the Court that the milling capacity of the petitioner has already been revised and has been reassessed at two tones per hour.
Keeping in view the aforesaid fact, we dispose of the present petition as having been rendered infructuous. However, the competent authority may take into the consideration the revised capacity of the petitioner-firm and take such further appropriate action as may be required in accordance with law.
Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual
charges.
( VINEY MITTAL ) JUDGE
December 04, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA ) ritu JUDGE
Ashok Kumar
State of Punjab
Viney Mittal
H.S Bhalla
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
