Disposed¶23

Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC2 May 2025CWP/12039/2025

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Street-vending cancellation order; statutory appeal before appellate authority; Town Vending Committee decision; condonation application under Section 5 Limitation Act; interim stay of cancellation order pending appeal decision within two months; disposal in terms of Coordinate Bench order dated 25.02.2025 in CWP-26405-2024 (Puneet Sharma v. UT Chandigarh); Punjab and Haryana High Court oral order dated 02.05.2025; pending applications disposed.

What did the court decide?

Writ petition disposed of in terms of the Coordinate Bench order dated 25.02.2025 in CWP-26405-2024: appellate authority directed to decide the petitioner's pending appeal within two months; operation of the cancellation order stayed until then; petitioner free to deposit outstanding amounts; all pending applications disposed of accordingly. ¶23

Ashok Kumar Vs Union Territory, Chandigarh and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

¶23

Issue for consideration

Whether the present writ petition can be disposed of in terms of the Coordinate Bench order dated 25.02.2025 passed in CWP-26405-2024 (Puneet Sharma and Others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh), i.e., with the appellate authority directed to decide the petitioner's already-filed appeal within two months and the operation of the cancellation order stayed meanwhile.

¶10

Court's answer

The appellate authority concerned is directed to decide the petitioner's appeal within a period of two months from the date of this order, and until then the operation of the cancellation order shall remain stayed.

¶21

Key takeaways

If the petitioner wants, he remains free at any time to deposit the amount outstanding as claimed by the respondents.obiter¶22

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Ashok Kumar v. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others, CWP-12039-2025 (O&M) (P&H HC, decided 02.05.2025, oral order): Bench of Sanjeev Prakash Sharma and Meenakshi I. Mehta, JJ., disposed the writ petition in terms of the Coordinate Bench order dated 25.02.2025 in CWP-26405-2024 (Puneet Sharma and Others v. Union Territory, Chandigarh). Counsel for both sides being ad idem that the matter could be so disposed, and the petitioner having already filed an appeal before the appellate authority which was still undecided, the Court directed the appellate authority to decide the petitioner's appeal within two months and ordered that the operation of the cancellation order remain stayed meanwhile. The petitioner was left free to deposit the amount outstanding as claimed by the respondents. Pending applications were disposed of accordingly.

¶1

112 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP-12039-2025 (O&M) Date of Decision:2^nd of May, 2025

¶3

ASHOK KU M AR

¶4

..…...Petitioner(s) V/s.

¶5

UNION TER R ITORY, CHANDIGARH AND O THERS .....Respondent(s)

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA

¶7

Present: M r. Parminder S. Kaul, Advocat e f or the petitioner. M r. Sanjiv Ghai, Standing counsel f or the respondents.

¶8

¶9

SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J. (Oral)

¶10

1. B oth the learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the issue raised i n the present Writ Petition ca n be disposed in terms of the order dated 2 5.02.2025 passed by the Coor d inate Bench of this Court in CWP-26405- 2 024 titled as Puneet Sharma and Others Vs. Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ; wherein t he Coordinate Bench has held

¶11

as under:-

¶12

“15. In aftermath, after u p holding the impugned show c ause notice, this Court permits t h e petitioners to challenge the d ecision pursuant thereto ma d e by the Town Vending C ommittee, thus through a statu t ory appeal becoming raised thereagainst, before the com p etent appellate authority c oncerned. Moreover, if the said st a tutory appeal is time barred, thereupon on an application c a st under Section 5 of the L imitation Act, becoming append e d with the statutory appeal, thus a valid speaking order sha l l be made by the appellate a uthority concerned. Subsequentl y , the said statutory appeal

¶13

Suresh Kumar 2025.05.05 14:23 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

¶14

CWP-12039-2025 (O&M)

¶15

Page 2 of 2

¶16

s hall be registered and shall b e decided on merits by the a ppellate authority concerned, but after hearing all the affected p ersons concerned. The said app e al be filed within two weeks f rom today, and, be ensured to b e decided within two months thereafter.

¶17

16. Till then the operation o f the cancellation order shall r emain stayed, and, subsequently, i n case an application, for an a like relief being claimed, becom e s filed before the Appellate A uthority, the same shall be lawf u lly decided within two weeks f rom the date of filing of the said a p plication.”

¶18

2. I t is informed to the Court that t he petitioner has already filed

¶19

an appeal be fo re the appellate authority whic h is still to be decided.

¶20

3. A ccordingly, we direct the ap p ellate authority concerned to

¶21

decide the appeal of the petitioner within a p eriod two months from today and till then t h e operation of the cancellation o rder shall remain stayed.

¶22

4. I t is made clear that if the petiti o ner wants, he is always free to deposit the a m ount outstanding as claimed b y the respondents.

¶23

5. T he present LPA is disposed of in the aforesaid terms. 6. A ll pending applications in this case are disposed of

¶24

accordingly.

¶25

[SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA] JUDGE

¶26

[MEENAKSHI I. MEHTA] JUDGE

¶27

May 2, 2025