Dismissed

M/S Sarswati Rice Mills v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC6 May 2016CWP/23428/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A writ petition challenging an order by the District Manager of Punjab Agro Food Grains was dismissed because the statutory respondent (the company) was not impleaded. The court held that other respondents needlessly engaged counsel due to the petitioner's fault and imposed heavy costs.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition dismissed with heavy costs of Re.1,00,000 to be deposited with Punjab State Legal Services Authority.

M/S Sarswati Rice Mills Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2016)

¶1

-1-

¶2

CWP No.23428 of 2015

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No.23428 of 2015 Date of decision: 06.05.2016

¶5

M/s Sarswati Rice Mills, Bahadurpur

¶6

....Petitioner

¶7

Versus

¶8

Union of India and others

¶9

....Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL

¶11

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

¶12

1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

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

¶14

Present: - Mr. Madan Sandhu, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. B.S. Cheema, DAG, Punjab. Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, for respondents No.3 and 4. Mr. Deepak Sabherwal, Advocate, for respondent No.6. Mr. Sumit Jain, Advocate, for respondent No.8.

¶15

PARAMJEET SINGH DHALIWAL, J. (ORAL)

¶16

Reply on behalf of respondents No.2 and 5, filed in Court today is taken on record.

¶17

Instant writ petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing the order dated 03.10.2013 (Annexure P-1) passed by District Manager, Punjab Agro Food Grains Corporation Ltd., Mansa.

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondents have pointed out that the impugned order has been passed by Punjab Agro Foodgrains Ltd. The authority which has passed the impugned order has not been impleaded rather other persons, who have no concern with this case, have been

¶19

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.05.12 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

¶20

-2-

¶21

CWP No.23428 of 2015

¶22

impleaded as party respondents and thus they have unnecessarily been directed to appear in this Court. No relief can be granted against them. Due to fault of the petitioner, respondents No.3 and 4 – Food Corporation of India, Respondent No.6 – PUNSUP and respondent No.8 – PSWC have engaged counsel for defending the case though they are not necessary parties.

¶23

In view of above, this Court has no option but to dismiss the petition with heavy costs.

¶24

Accordingly, the petition is dismissed with a cost of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees one lac only) to be deposited with the Punjab State Legal Services Authority. In case the amount is not deposited, same shall be recovered as arrears of land revenue from the petitioner.

¶25

(Paramjeet Singh Dhaliwal) Judge

¶26

May 06, 2016 R.S.

¶27

RAVINDER SINGH 2016.05.12 10:52 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document

M/S Sarswati Rice Mills v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

M/S Sarswati Rice Mills v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Baptist Church Trust Association Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Ram Singh Vs Finance Commissioner Pb.& Ors.

Gurjant Singh & Ors. Vs Superintending Canal Officer & Ors.

Ramesh Kumar Vs U T Chandigarh Administration and Ors.

Vinod Joshi Vs Deputy Commissioner & Anr.

Gurpreet Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.