The Court found a writ petition seeking specific allotment of transportation work to be infructuous because the relevant agricultural year for which the work was sought had already been completed.
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 AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
214
Civil Writ Petition No.10702 of 2016 Date of Decision: October 18, 2016
M/s The Truck Operator Union, Rohtak
....Petitioner
versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN
Present: None for the petitioner.
Mr. Saurabh Girdhar, AAG, Haryana.
Mr. Deepak Balyan, Advocate for respondents No.5 & 6.
Mr. S.N. Pillania, Advocate for Mr. A.K. Kansal, Advocate for respondent No.7.
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)
Sonia Kinra 2016.10.21 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No.10702 of 2016
-2-
“That the prayer of the petitioner for issuance of a writ direction to the respondent to allot the work of loading and transporting the food grains/ food articles from Grain Market, Jind to any destination at a distance of more than 8 kilometers for the year 2016-17 to the petitioner is not maintainable at this stage on the reason that the work for the year 2016-17 has already been completed and no further work is to be got done either from the Mandi Labour & Cartage Contractors (MLC) and Mandi Transport Contractor (MTC). The work of transportation
Sonia Kinra 2016.10.21 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
Civil Writ Petition No.10702 of 2016
-3-
of wheat from Jind Mandi to Godowns at Cattle Feed Plant was allotted to the MLC ( M/s Sushil & Co., Jind) as per clause no.18 of the terms & conditions of the Transportation Tender which has been accepted and signed by the petitioner which reads as:
“The payment for the specific point which stands approved in Mandi Proforma will be made either at the approved transportation rates or at Mandi proforma rates whichever is less. That no payment will be made until the rates are finally approved”.
(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE
(RAMENDRA JAIN)
October 18, 2016
JUDGE
sonia gugnani
Whether speaking/reasoned?
Yes/No
Whether reportable? Yes/No
Sonia Kinra 2016.10.21 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petition for allotment of transportation work is maintainable in light of the agricultural year 2016-17 being already completed.
1 provisions across 1 enactments
M/s The Truck Operator Union, Rohtak
State of Haryana
AJAY KUMAR MITTAL
RAMENDRA JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
