Disposed

M/S Sakshi Enterprises v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board & Ano.

Punjab & Haryana HC14 Mar 2012CWP/9368/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court disposed of a writ petition seeking direction to consider an expired application for renewal of a commission agent license. It issued orders regarding the submission of a fresh application and the timeline for decision-making by the responsible officer.

What did the court decide?

Directed respondent No.3 to decide a fresh application for license renewal if filed within a fortnight, by passing a speaking order within two months.

M/S Sakshi Enterprises Vs Haryana State… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

::1::

¶2

CWP No.9368 of 2011 (O & M)

¶3

IN THE PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.9368 of 2011 (O & M) Date of Decision: March 14, 2012

¶5

M/s Sakshi Enterprises through its proprietor

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Haryana State Agriculture Marketing Board and others

¶9

.... Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

¶11

Present: Mr. D.S. Virk, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr.Nimyanshu Gautam, Advocate, for Mr.Namit Gautam, Advocate, for respondent No.2.

¶13

¶14

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

¶15

The petitioner seeks a writ of mandamus through the present petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for directing the respondents to consider the application, which had been filed by him for renewal of licence of commission agent authorizing him to regularize the business at Anaj Mandi, Shri Jiwan Nagar, Tehsil Rania, District Sirsa.

¶16

It has been averred in the petition that the petitioner had submitted an application (Annexure P-2) on 05.04.2011 to respondent No.1 for renewal of licence of commission agent. It has further been stated that no action has been taken thereon so far. He, however, states that the said application had been submitted to

¶17

::2::

¶18

CWP No.9368 of 2011 (O & M)

¶19

respondent No.1.

¶20

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that a fresh application shall be submitted to respondent No.3 who is the authorized officer for renewal of licence and he be directed to take a decision thereon within a time-bound frame. He further states that the said application shall be filed to respondent No.3 within a period of fortnight from today.

¶21

After hearing learned counsel for the parties, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, the present petition is disposed of by directing respondent No.3 that, in case, an application is filed by the petitioner for renewal of licence of commission agent within a fortnight from today, the same shall be decided by him by passing a speaking order in accordance with law within a period of next two months.

¶22

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) March 14, 2012 JUDGE sukhpreet

M/S Sakshi Enterprises v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board & Ano.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sakshi Enterprises v. Haryana State Agriculture Mktg. Board & Ano.

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

Rama Pareek Vs Bharat Petroleum Corp. Ltd. etc.

M/S Daljit Singh & Bros. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Sunil Kumar Bathla Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Puran Singh & Ors. Vs Joginder Singh

M/S Punjab Agriculture Industries Vs State of Punjab and Others

Harmangal Singh Vs Punjab State Power Corporation Ltd. and Anr.