Disposed

V K Indrayan v. Pb State Indu Dev Coop Ltd. etc.

Punjab & Haryana HC10 Feb 2009CWP/10322/2007

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

On following counsel, the Court disposed of a writ certiorari challenging the denial of equity share transfer. The petitioner was directed to approach the Corporation within six weeks for reconsideration in light of a policy modification withdrawing benefits for profit-making company collaborators, without keeping the petition pending.

What did the court decide?

Petitioner directed to approach Corporation within six weeks for reconsideration against the backdrop of withdrawn OTS scheme benefits; Corporation to take final decision based on modified policy.

V K Indrayan Vs Pb State Indu Dev… — Pension and Retirement Benefits | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

**PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT, CHANDIGARH. *****

¶2

CWP NO. 10322 OF 2007

¶3

Date of Decision: Feb. 10, 2009

¶4

¶5

V.K.Indrayan Versus Punjab State Industrial Development Corporation Limited and another.

¶6

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice T.S.Thakur, CJ and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Hemant Gupta.

¶7

¶8

Present: Shri Rahul Sharma, Advocate, for the petitioner. Shri B.S.Walia, Advocate, for the respondents.

¶9

T.S.Thakur, CJ (Oral)

¶10

In this petition for a writ of certiorari, the petitioner has questioned the validity of the communications dated 22.06.2007, 29.06.2007 and 30.06.2007 (Annexures P15, 16 and 18), to the writ petition whereby the respondents-Corporation has decided not to transfer its equity share holding in M/S Indian Yard Limited to the petitioner and has raised a demand for payment of Rs. 13,47,236/- as additional interest upto 30.06.2007 allegedly in contravention of the terms and conditions of the OTS Agreement, Annexure P-2.

¶11

Learned counsel for the parties submit that during the pendency of these proceedings the OTS scheme formulated by the State Government has been modified in terms of a notification dated 06.02.2009 whereby the benefit of the said scheme has been withdrawn qua collaborators/promoters of profit making companies. It is submitted that in the light of the said modification of the one time settlement scheme earlier formulated, the question whether the petitioner is entitled to the benefit of the scheme as modified will have to be re-examined at the appropriate level by the respondent-Corporation.

¶12

Learned counsel appearing for the respondent-Corporation submits on instructions that given six weeks time, the Corporation shall be in a position to examine the issue in the light of the modification made by the notification mentioned

¶13

-2CWP No.10322 of 2007

¶14

earlier and take a final decision on the request made by the petitioner for transfer of equity share holding in his favour. In the circumstances, therefore, and keeping in view the changed circumstances especially the withdrawal of the O.T.S in terms of notification dated 6.02.2009 qua collaborators/promoters of profit making companies, we see no reason to keep this writ petition pending with us. The proper course for the respondent-Corporation is to examine the request made by the petitioner for the grant of benefits under the OTS in the light of the changed circumstances and the modification mentioned earlier expeditiously but not later than six weeks from the date a copy of this order is received by it. We make it clear that since the scheme itself has undergone a change, the view taken by the Corporation in terms of the impugned communications Annexures P15, 16 and 18 referred to earlier, shall be no impediment for it, to take an appropriate decision under the modified policy. We further direct that the petitioner shall be free to seek appropriate redress in case the Corporation takes a decision adverse to it upon reconsideration of the matter including redress by way of a challenge to notification dated 6.02.2009.

¶15

This writ petition is, with the above observations, disposed of. No costs.

¶16

(T.S.Thakur) Chief Justice

¶17

(Hemant Gupta) Judge

¶18

February 10, 2009 Malik

V K Indrayan v. Pb State Indu Dev Coop Ltd. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

V K Indrayan v. Pb State Indu Dev Coop Ltd. etc.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Sharanjit Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashwani Kumar Sood Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Baldev Raj Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Gagan Arora Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab State Warehousing Corp. Vs Punjab Ware House Field and Ors.(Dismissed in Default)

Kanwarjit Singh Vs State of Pb. and Ors.