The petitioner was not a party to prior proceedings but was directed to be considered per a directed case order. The court disposed of this writ petition without being reported in the digest.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
C.W.P. No.19210 of 2011 Date of Decision: May 30,2014
M/s Om Fruit Company ................................. Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others .................. Respondents
Coram: Hon'ble Ms. Justice Ritu Bahri
Present: Mr. Sanjiv Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner/s.
Mr. Rajiv Parshad, DAG, Haryana.
Mr. Namit Gautam, Advocate for respondent No.2.
RITU BAHRI, J. (Oral)
The petitioner was not a party to the proceedings before the LPA Bench but as per the directions given in L.P.A. No. 733 of 2010 (M/s Ram Fruit Company and others v. The Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board and others) decided on 4.12.2013 the respondents are directed to consider the case of the petitioner.
The petition is disposed of.
( RITU BAHRI ) JUDGE
30.5.2014
Kaur Rupinderrupi 2014.06.23 11:54 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh
M/s Om Fruit Company
State of Haryana
RITU BAHRI
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
