Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

JAGJIT SINGH versus IQBAL SINGH SIDHU

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Jagjit Singh v. Iqbal Singh Sidhu - COCP-1306-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 10522 (14 November 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

COCP No.1306 of 2006

Date of decision: November 16, 2006.

Jagjit Singh

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Iqbal Singh Sidhu

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Onkar Singh Batalvi, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri G.S. Cheema, Sr. Dy. Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioner, in order to seek allotment of registration No.PB- 02-AS-0001 for one of the motor vehicle owned by him, filed CWP No.11507 of 2006 which was disposed of by this Court on July 28, 2006 with a direction to the State Transport Commissioner, Punjab to take a final decision on the legal notice which the petitioner had already serve on the said authority.

Alleging non-compliance of the above stated order, this contempt petition has been filed.

In response to the show cause notice, Mr. G.S. Cheema, learned Sr. DAG, Punjab, has filed an affidavit of Shri Iqbal Singh Sidhu, State Transport Commissioner, Punjab, which is taken on record.

It is averred in the affidavit that, though, the petitioner's claim is founded upon the fact that he had deposited a sum of Rs.50000/- by way of a challan. However, mere deposit of the said amount does not create any right for allotment of the registration number of his choice. As per the affidavit, such kind of numbers are put to auction and whosoever the highest bidder, is allotted the same.

Be that as it may, the petitioner's legal notice has been responded to by way of a reasoned order dated 9.11.2006, a copy of which has been appended with the affidavit.

In this view of the matter, and having regard to the stand taken by the respondent in his affidavit, this petition is disposed of with liberty to the petitioner to impugn the above stated speaking order before an appropriate forum, if so advised.

Disposed of.

Rule discharged.

November 16, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.