Allowed

Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC21 May 2012CWP/17275/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged wheat shortage determination via writ petition. Court declined to decide merits but issued specific direction to respondents to decide the pending legal notice within two months, citing Supreme Court precedent regarding Section 80 CPC timelines.

What did the court decide?

Directions issued to respondents to decide the legal notice within two months from the date of the order.

Satwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.W.P.No.17275 of 2011 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision : 21.5.2012

Satwinder Singh

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Punjab and others

¶8

...Respondents

¶9

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present : Mr.B.S.Baath, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

¶11

MAHESH GROVER, J.

¶12

C.M.No.15737 of 2011

¶13

Allowed as prayed for.

¶14

C.M.No.15738 of 2011

¶15

C.M. allowed. Annexures P-5 and P-6 are taken on record.

¶16

C.M.No.15739 of 2011

¶17

C.M. is allowed as prayed for. The persons mentioned in

¶18

para 2 of the application are permitted to be impleaded as petitioners No.2 to 55.

¶19

Amended memorandum of parties is taken on record.

¶20

C.M.No.7208 of 2012

¶21

Allowed as prayed for.

¶22

C.W.P.No.7209 of 2012

¶23

C.M. is allowed. Annexure P-7 is taken on record.

¶24

C.W.P.No.17275 of 2011 (O&M) -2-

¶25

C.W.P.No.17275 of 2011

¶26

Prima facie this Court is not convinced that the prayer raised by the petitioner can be answered in the exercise of jurisdiction under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India considering the fact that the controversy regarding determination of shortage of wheat on account of shrinkage because of lifting of wheat belatedly is dependent on factors which have to be proved on the basis of some technical opinion.

¶27

However, this is not to say that this is a comment upon the merits of the controversy raised by the petitioner, who may, if so advised, take recourse to the legal remedies available to him.

¶28

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that he has already issued a legal notice to the respondents under Section 80 CPC which has still not been answered. He thus prays that direction be issued that the same be decided.

¶29

On due consideration of the matter, I am of the opinion that in view of the observations made by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Salem Advocate Bar Association, T.N. v. Union of India, ( 2005) 6 Supreme Court Cases 344 the legal notice served upon the respondents necessarily has to be decided within the period provided in the Civil Procedure Code. Consequently, directions are issued to the respondents to decide the legal notice issued by the petitioner within a period of two months from today.

¶30

Petition stands disposed of.

¶31

21.5.2012 (MAHESH GROVER) dss JUDGE

Satwinder Singh v. State of Punjab & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Satwinder Singh 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

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Jitender & Anr. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Sukhjinder Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Avtar Singh Vs Punjab State Electricity Board and Ors.

Balbir Singh Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Amarjit Singh Johal Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Ors.

Suraj Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.