Disposed

M/S Rajsons Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Apr 2011CWP/5597/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The single-judge High Court of Punjab and Haryana disposed of Writ Petition No. 5597 of 2011 (Common Cause with CWP No. 5602 of 2011), directing official respondents to ensure no obstruction is caused to the petitioners' lawful cold storage business operations.

What did the court decide?

Direction to official respondents to ensure no obstruction or hindrance is caused to the petitioners in the lawful performance of their cold storage business.

M/S Rajsons Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

1 –

¶2

CWP No.5597 of 2011.doc

¶3

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

¶5

CWP No.5597of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 08.04.2011

¶6

¶7

Raj Sons Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. & Anr.

¶8

. . . . Petitioners

¶9

VS.

¶10

State of Punjab & Ors.

¶11

. . . . Respondents

¶12

¶13

CORAM : HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT

¶14

¶15

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

¶16

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶17

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

¶18

¶19

Present: Mr. Jaspreet Singh, Advocate for the petitioners

¶20

Ms. Sudeepti Sharma, DAG Punjab

¶21

Mr. Ashish Bansal, Advocate for respondent No.5 In CWP No.5602 of 2011

¶22

¶23

SURYA KANT J. (ORAL)

¶24

(1). This order shall dispose of CWP Nos.5597 & 5602 of 2011

¶25

as common issues are involved in these cases. For brevity, the facts are being extracted from CWP No.5597 of 2011.

¶26

(2). The petitioners, who are running cold storage business at Kohara Road Sahnewal, District Ludhiana have alleged that obstruction and hindrance in the free and smooth movement of their business is being caused at the hands of the private respondents who are the office-bearers and

¶27

2 –

¶28

CWP No.5597 of 2011.doc

¶29

members of the local Truck Union. The petitioners thus seek protection of their property as well as their lives and liberty from the private respondents.

¶30

(3). Though no reply has been filed by the official respondents yet, on instructions, it is explained that no complaint was ever received by them in this regard. They have also assured that in the event of any such complaint, necessary action as per law shall be taken immediately.

¶31

(4). In view of the above-stated stand taken by the parties, the writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the official respondents to ensure that no

¶32

obstruction/hindrance is caused by anyone in the lawful performance of the cold storage business by the petitioner (s).

¶33

(5). Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

¶34

08.04.2011 (S u r y a K a n t) vishal shonkar Judge

M/S Rajsons Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Rajsons Cold Storage Pvt. Ltd. and Anr. 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

M/S Sangrur Milk Products Pvt. Ltd. Vs Distt. Magistrate Cum Deputy Comm. Sgr & Ors.

Balbir Garg Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Saluja Rice Mills Vs Pb State Civil Supply Corpn Ltd. and Ors.

Hari Singh Vs the Deputy Commissioner, Bathinda and Anr.

Babu Ram Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

M/S Laddi Bus Service Regd. and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.