Disposed

Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Limited. v. U .T Administration & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC24 Oct 2016CWP/21509/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Petitioner challenged rejection of representation regarding scheme provisions. Court directed petitioner to file detailed representation within 15 days for decision via speaking order in one month after hearing within next month.

What did the court decide?

Direction to file detailed representation within 15 days and decision via speaking order within one month of filing after hearing.

Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Limited. Vs U .T… — Company and Corporate | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 21509 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 24.10.2016

¶3

Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

¶4

Versus

¶5

UT Administration, Chandigarh and another

¶6

. . . Respondents

¶7

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN

¶8

PRESENT: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner. ****

¶9

AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral)

¶10

CM No. 13518-CWP of 2016

¶11

Annexure P-26 filed along with the application is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place.

¶12

CM stands disposed of.

¶13

CWP No. 21509 of 2016

¶14

The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of Clause 7 of the letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-18) being contrary and violative of the provisions of the scheme dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-24), issued by the UT Administration, whereby, the representation dated 01.08.2016 submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

¶15

learned counsel for the petitioner states that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation to the concerned-respondent, raising all the pleas as have been sought to be raised

¶16

Jawala Ram 2016.10.26 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

CWP No. 21509 of 2016 (O&M) - 2 -

¶18

in the present writ petition. However, a prayer was made that a time bound direction be issued to the concerned-respondent to decide the same expeditiously.

¶19

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the writ petition is disposed of by observing that in case such a representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of next one month from its filing.

¶20

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE

¶21

(RAMENDRA JAIN) October 24, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No Whether Reportable: Yes/No

¶22

Jawala Ram 2016.10.26 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Limited. v. U .T Administration & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Limited. v. U .T Administration & 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

M/S Kashmir Apiaries Export & Ors. Vs Kotak Mahindra Bank

M/S New Bajaj Saree Centre and Anr. Vs Debts Recovery Appellate Tribunal New Delhi and Ors.

Mukesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors.

M/S Jagannath Attar Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

M/S Kirpal Singh Inderpal Vs State of Haryana and Others

Shripal Pal Vs State of Haryana & Ors.