Disposed

Sharik Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC19 May 2014CWP/9589/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This writ petition was disposed of without expressing views on merits. The High Court directed respondents to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's earlier representation regarding the refund of earnest money deposited for an allotment of a shop site in an auction.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents to pass a speaking order on the petitioner's representation or treat the petition as such within four months.

Sharik Ahuja Vs State of Haryana and Others — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

¶3

CWP No.9589 of 2014 (O&M) Date of Decision: 19.05.2014

¶4

¶5

Sharik Ahuja . . . . Petitioner

¶6

VS.

¶7

State of Haryana & Ors. . . . . Respondents

¶8

¶9

CORAM: HON’BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT HON’BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL

¶10

¶11

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶12

2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶13

3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

¶15

Present: Mr. Rajnish Gupta, Advocate for the petitioner

¶16

¶17

SURYA KANT, J. (Oral)

¶18

(1) The petitioner was a successful bidder in an open auction held on 27.06.2008 for allotment of shop sites in the New Grain Market, Babarpur, District Panipat. He was allotted shop site No.94 for which twenty five per cent earnest money was deposited. The petitioner alleges that while nine terms and conditions duly incorporated in the advertisement were not in dispute, the authorities imposed some additional terms and conditions after the fall of hammer which were not accepted by him or the other auction purchasers. Since the authorities insisted imposition of those additional conditions, the petitioner is said to have refused to accept the offer of allotment. On this premise, the petitioner claims that he is entitled to refund of the entire amount of Rs.8,65,000/- deposited by him.

¶19

Vishal V 2014.07.03 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶20

��

¶21

�� ��

¶22

(2) The petitioner in this regard has submitted a representation on 03.01.2013 (Annexure P15) but finding no decision thereupon that he has approached this Court.

¶23

(3) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioner and keeping in view the nature of relief sought, however, without expressing any views on merit, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to respondents No.2&3 to pass a speaking order on the representation dated 03.01.2013 received from the petitioner and/or treat this writ petition as representation on his behalf.

¶24

(4) The needful shall be done within a period of four months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

¶25

(5) Ordered accordingly. Dasti .

��

��

�� 

Vishal V 2014.07.03 10:29 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

Sharik Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sharik Ahuja v. State of Haryana and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Raj Kumar Jain etc. Vs State of Haryana etc.

Virinder Kumar Vs Chandigarh Administration Thru Advisor etc.

Randhir Singh Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Jasbir Singh & Ors. Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

Sadhu Ram and Ors. Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Manju Gupta Vs State of Haryana & Ors.