Disposed

M/S G.S. Developers v. the Estate Officer, Huda, Faridabad and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Apr 2013CWP/4748/2013

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner filed a writ petition directing the Financial Commissioner to decide a pending revision petition regarding refund of excess amount. Court directed the respondent to decide the pending revision and issue a speaking order within three months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Respondent No. 3 to decide the pending revision petition and pass a speaking order within three months.

M/S G.S. Developers Vs the Est… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 4748 of 2013

¶3

DATE OF DECISION : 25.04.2013

¶4

M/s G.S. Developers, New Delhi

¶5

.... PETITIONER

¶6

Versus

¶7

The Estate Officer, HUDA, Faridabad and others

¶8

..... RESPONDENTS

¶9

CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AMOL RATTAN SINGH

¶10

Present: Mr. Jagdish Manchanda, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶11

¶12

SATISH KUMAR MITTAL, J. ( Oral )

¶13

The petitioner firm has filed the instant writ petition for issuing direction to the Financial Commissioner, Haryana, HUDA Department (respondent No.3 herein) to decide its revision petition dated 25.5.2012 (Annexure P-19) filed against the order dated 10.1.2012 (Annexure P-13) passed by the Administrator, HUDA, Faridabad (respondent No.2 herein), exercising the powers of the Chief Administrator, whereby the resumption order dated 3.9.2009 (Annexure P-10) passed against the petitioner firm was modified with a direction to respondent No.2 to refund the excess deducted amount to the petitioner firm, which was more than 10% of the bid amount. Feeling aggrieved of the order to the extent that on the amount of refund, no interest was awarded, the petitioner firm filed revision petition dated

¶14

CWP No. 4748 of 2013

¶15

-2-

¶16

25.5.2012 before respondent No.3, copy of which has been annexed as Annexure P-19. According to the petitioner, the said revision petition is still pending.

¶17

In view of the aforesaid facts, after hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, without issuing notice of motion as it will un-necessary delay the matter, this petition is disposed of with a direction to respondent No.3 that if the aforesaid revision petition dated 25.5.2012 has not been decided so far, the same be decided after hearing counsel for the petitioner and by passing a speaking order, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from the date of receipt of the certified copy of this order.

¶18

( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE

¶19

April 25, 2013 ( AMOL RATTAN SINGH ) ndj JUDGE

M/S G.S. Developers v. the Estate Officer, Huda, Faridabad and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S G.S. Developers v. the Estate Officer, Huda, Faridabad and Anr.

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

Ram Sarup Chauhan Vs Housing Board, Haryana and Others

Ravinder Veer Hooda Vs Housing Board, Haryana and Others

Satish Kumar & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Kuldip Kaur Vs State Election Commission Haryana and Ors.

M.S. Nagpal and Ors. Vs U.T. Administration and Ors.

Prem Lata Jindal Vs State of Haryana and Ors.