Disposed

M/S S.S. Company v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC1 Feb 2012CWP/11319/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition under Article 226 seeking protection for business operations interrupted by local residents, the petitioner claimed police inaction. State counsel assured provision of adequate police protection, rendering the petition infructuous, and the matter was disposed of accordingly.

What did the court decide?

Petition rendered infructuous and disposed of due to State's assurance of adequate police protection.

M/S S.S. Company Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 11319 of 2011

¶3

Date of Decision: 1.2.2012

M/s S.S. & Company

....Petitioner.

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents.

¶9

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.

¶10

PRESENT: Mr. Raman Preet Singh, Advocate for Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Jaswinder Singh, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶13

The petitioner has filed the present petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to protect the life and liberty of the petitioner and its employees.

¶14

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner-firm is in the business of transporting contract for foodgrains and in response to tender notice issued by the Food Corporation of India, transport contract from Bharaiwal, Bhagtanwala and Amritsar Local and Chhabbal to avail head Chherahata, was granted on 18.10.2010 and 26.10.2010. According to the petitioner, the petitioner had deposited the entire security amount and started the operations of loading foodgrains from the said centres. The operations being carried out by

¶15

CWP No. 11319 of 2011

¶16

-2-

¶17

the petitioner were interrupted by certain local residents and, therefore, the petitioner has approached this Court seeking protection. It has further been averred that a representation dated 4.6.2011 (Annexure P- 3) had also been moved to the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar on which no action had been taken.

¶18

Learned State counsel on instructions from the Commissioner of Police, Amritsar states that adequate protection shall be provided to the petitioner. He further states that in case any hindrance is created to the petitioner, the same shall be removed by providing police help as and when the petitioner approaches the concerned police authorities.

¶19

In view of the statement made by the learned State counsel, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

¶20

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶21

February 1, 2012 gbs

M/S S.S. Company v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S S.S. Company v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Manjit Singh Aujla Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Indra Rani Vs Income-Tax Officer, Ward v (2), Ludhiana

Amar Iqbal Singh & Ors. Vs State Bank of India & Ors.

Gurpreet Kaurq Vs Pseb and Ors.

M/S Bipasha Aviations Services Pvt. Ltd. Vs Union of India and Anr.

Kanchhi Ram Vs Municipal Corporation, Faridabad