M/S Rajendera Electric Works Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

M/S Rajendera Electric Works Vs State of Haryana and Others — Punjab & Haryana HC (2025) — LawSathi Research

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No substantive relief; writ petition closed since the legal notice stands decided, with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse against the decision/response if aggrieved.

Issue for consideration

Whether the authorities concerned were obliged to make payment of the petitioner's bills and to decide the petitioner's legal notice, given their failure to do so despite repeated requests and lapse of considerable time. +2 more

Ratio / Principle

Since the petitioner's legal notice has already been decided/responded to, no further direction is required to be passed and the instant writ petition is closed.

Key takeaways

If the petitioner has any grievance against the decision/response to its legal notice, it is at liberty to take the apposite legal recourse for redressal thereof.ratio¶27

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Punjab and Haryana High Court (Kuldeep Tiwari, J.), CWP-2727-2025, decided 15.05.2025 — M/s Rajendera Electric Works v. State of Haryana and others. Writ petition alleging that despite repeated requests neither payment of the petitioner's bills was made nor any decision taken on its legal notice (Annexure P-3) by the authorities of the Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board. By interim order dated 03.04.2025 (passed in CM-4748-CWP-2025 allowing Annexure P-5 on record), the Court, without expressing any opinion on merits or on admission/sanction of the bills, directed the competent authority amongst the respondents to make a final decision on the legal notice before the next date of hearing, to forthwith release any payment found outstanding, and to place the decision on record, failing which personal appearance was mandated. In compliance, the State placed on record the decision/response dated 07.05.2025 of the Executive Engineer (E), HSAMB, Rohtak. Holding that since the legal notice had already been decided/responded to, no further direction was required; the writ petition was closed with liberty to the petitioner to take appropriate legal recourse against the decision/response. Disposed of accordingly.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

110

CWP-2727-2025 Date of Decision : May 15, 2025

M/S RAJENDERA ELECTRIC WORKS -PETITIONER

V/S

STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS -RESPONDENTS

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KULDEEP TIWARI

Present: Mr. Kanishk Swaroop, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Addl. A.G., Haryana.

KULDEEP TIWARI, J. (ORAL)

In deference to the hereinafter extracted order passed by this Court on 03.04.2025, today the learned State counsel has placed on record the decision/response dated 07.05.2025, as made by the Executive Engineer (E), Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Rohtak, to the petitioner’s legal notice.

“ CM-4748-CWP-2025

1. For the reasons assigned in the instant application, the same is allowed . Annexure P-5 is ordered to be taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. CWP-2727-2025

2. The gravamen of the lis, as encapsulated in this writ petition, is centered upon the indolent and lackadaisical approach of the authority(ies) concerned inasmuch as despite repeated requests and lapse of considerable time, neither the payment of the bill(s) has been made to the petitioner, nor any decision has been made on petitioner’s legal notice, which is enclosed as Annexure P-3 in this writ petition.

3. During the course of arguments, the learned counsel for the petitioner fairly submits that, at this stage, the petitioner would be satisfied in case a direction is passed upon the respondent(s) concerned to decide the legal notice (supra) in a time bound

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.17 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment

CWP-2727-2025

2

manner.

4. Notice of motion.

5. Mr. Bhupender Singh, D.A.G., Haryana, waives service of notice on behalf of the respondents. He submits that, there is no objection in case a direction is passed upon the respondent(s) concerned to decide the legal notice (supra) in a time bound manner.

6. Without evincing any opinion as regards the merits of this writ petition, or, as regards the bill(s) being admitted/sanctioned, this Court deems it appropriate to direct the competent authority, amongst the respondents, to make final decision on the legal notice (supra) before the next date of hearing, and, in case any payment is found outstanding, the same shall forthwith be released in favour of the petitioner. Moreover, a copy of the decision so taken, shall be placed on record on the subsequent date of hearing.

7. It is made clear that, in case of non-compliance of the direction (supra), the competent authority shall cause personal appearance before this Court on the subsequent date of hearing.

8. List on 15.05.2025, in the urgent list.

9. It is made clear that, on the subsequent date of hearing, no request for adjournment would be entertained on behalf of either side.”

Since the petitioner’s legal notice has already been decided/ responded to, therefore, no further direction is required to be passed. Hence, the instant writ petition is closed. However, in case, the petitioner has any grievance against the decision/response (supra), it is at liberty to take the apposite legal recourse for redressal thereof.

3. Disposed of accordingly.

(KULDEEP TIWARI) May 15, 2025 JUDGE devinder Whether speaking/reasoned : Yes/No Whether Reportable : Yes/No

DEVINDER YADAV 2025.05.17 12:16 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment