Disposed

M/S V.S. Agro Industries v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC27 Sept 2010CWP/10248/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In these connected writ petitions, the petitioner challenged orders reducing its milling capacity. The court directed the respondents to revisit the mill within two weeks, re-examine capacity under the stated policy, and check for discrimination before passing a fresh order.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondents to re-examine petitioner's mill capacity via expert team within two weeks and pass a fresh order.

M/S V.S. Agro Industries Vs State of Punjab… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

¶2

C.W.P. No. 10248 of 2009 . [O&M]

¶3

Date of Decision: 27^th September, 2010 .

¶4

M/s V.S.Agro Industries Petitioner through Mr. S.K.Pipat, Sr. Advocate with S.P.Garg, Advocate

¶5

Versus

¶6

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶7

Respondents through Mr. KDS Sidhu, DAG, Punjab.

¶8

CORAM:

¶9

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SURYA KANT.

¶10

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶11

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶12

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶13

SURYA KANT, J. [ORAL]

¶14

This order shall dispose of CWP Nos. 10248 of 2009 and 11289 of 2010 as common questions of law and facts are involved in these cases which have been filed by the same petitioner – a Rice Sheller situated at Punnawal Road, Kanjla, Dhuri, District Sangrur. The petitioner's grievance is that vide the impugned orders dated 21.05.2007 [Annexure P-8]; dated 29.01.2009 [Annexure P-12] [in CWP No. 10248 of 2009]; dated 29.01.2009 [Annexure P-12] and dated 07.09.2009 [Annexure P-13] [in CWP No. 11289 of 2010], the milling capacity of the petitioner has been drastically reduced from 2.5 ton to one ton by the respondents.

¶15

One of the plea raised on behalf of the petitioner is that the plant installed by it has a higher capacity of four ton, if put to operation for 24 hours. The respondents on the other hand are said to have assessed the petitioner's capacity on the basis of the new

¶16

policy decision dated 21.08.2007 [Annexure P-10] wherein the parameters for rice milling with new techniques etc. have been laid down.

¶17

I have heard learned counsel for the parties at some length and as agreed to by them, it appears to be in the interest of justice if the respondents re-examine the actual milling capacity of the petitioner as per the parameters laid down in their policy dated 21.08.2007 [Annexure P-10] and thereafter determine the milling capacity of the petitioner mill. While re-considering the petitioner's claim, the respondents are directed to examine the plea of discrimination also as raised on behalf of the petitioner. The petitioner Mill shall be re-visited by the Expert Team within a period of two weeks and a fresh order shall be passed accordingly.

¶18

Disposed of. Dasti .

¶19

September 27, 2010. ( SURYA KANT ) dinesh JUDGE

M/S V.S. Agro Industries v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S V.S. Agro Industries v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Mohan Lal Modi Vs Financial Commisionr Rev. Pb and Ors.

Employees Provident Fund Organization Vs Punjab Financial Corporation and Another

Sachin Udassi Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Kanchan Sharma Vs Pseb & Ors.

M/S Cee Enn Promoters & Developers P Ltd. Vs Punjab State Transmission Co. Op & Anr.

Harbhajan Singh and Ors. Vs Food Corpn. of India and Ors.