Quashed

Bimal Kishore v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Feb 2012CWP/18287/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Court disposed of a writ petition challenging the refusal to grant a commission agent licence. The petitioners were not heard, justifying the quashing of the rejection order despite the existence of an alternative statutory appeal remedy.

What did the court decide?

Annexure P-4 set aside; respondent directed to pass fresh orders after hearing petitioner within two months.

Bimal Kishore Vs State of Haryana and Anr. — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.18287 of 2010 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.18287 of 2010 (O & M) Date of Decision: February 08, 2012.

Bimal Kishore Kanda

....Petitioner

Versus

State of Haryana and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr.Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Rajiv Parshad, DAG, Haryana.

¶13

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

The challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for quashing the communication dated 16.02.2010 (Annexure P-4) whereby the application of the petitioner for grant of licence of Commission Agent for selling fruits has been declined. According to the learned counsel for the petitioner, the same has been declined without any basis and without affording any opportunity of hearing to the petitioner.

¶16

On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that the petitioner has alternative statutory remedy of appeal under Section 10(4) of the Punjab Agricultural Marketing Board Act, 1951 against the impugned communication (Annexure P-4).

¶17

After hearing learned counsel for the parties and perusing the writ petition particularly Annexure P-4 which shows that respondent No.2 has passed the following orders while rejecting the

¶18

::2::

¶19

CWP No.18287 of 2010 (O & M)

¶20

application of the petitioner:

¶21

“It is informed that licence of commission agent u/s 10 category-II cannot be granted in the booths”.

¶22

In view of the above, it is clear that respondent No.2 has not considered the case of the petitioner as no opportunity of hearing had been granted to the petitioner. Accordingly, the present petition is disposed of by setting aside Annexure P-4 and with a direction to respondent No.2 to pass fresh orders after hearing the petitioner in accordance with law within a period of two months from the date of receipt of certified copy of this order.

¶23

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶24

February 08, 2012 sukhpreet

Bimal Kishore v. State of Haryana and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bimal Kishore v. State of Haryana and Anr.

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

Mukand Lal Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Hardeep Kaur Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Arun Kumar Seemar Vs Indian Oil Corporation Ltd. & Ors.

Banarsi Dass Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Monika and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Others

Bir Parkash Malhotra and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.