Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ASA RAM PARBH DYAL versus STATE OF PUNJAB

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Asa Ram Parbh Dyal v. State of Punjab - CWP-10534-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4865 (27 July 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10534 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: S/Shri Lalit Sharma and R.S.Chauhan, Advocates for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

This order shall dispose of a bunch of writ petitions being

CWP No.10534 of 2006, CWP No.10539 of 2006, CWP No.10554 of 2006,CWP No.10555 of 2006, CWP No.10556 of 2006, CWP No.10557 of 2006,CWP No.10618 of 2006 and CWP No.10811 of 2006.

Notice of motion to the respondents.

On the asking of Court, Shri Harbhajan Singh Sran, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Board in CWP No.10534 of 2006, CWP No.10539 of 2006 and CWP No.10554 of 2006.

Shri APS Mann, Advocate accepts notice on behalf of the respondent Board in CWP No.10555 of 2006, CWP No.10556 of 2006, CWP No.10557 of 2006,CWP No.10618 of 2006 and CWP No.10811 of 2006.

The petitioners have approached this Court for issuance of directions to the respondent Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and Market Committee, Mansa to allot the plots to them in New Grain Market at Mansa. The petitioners claim that they are eligible for allotment of the aforesaid plots and in spite of the fact that they had deposited 25% of the amount required for allotment of said plots, no such allotment has been made so far. In support of their claim, the petitioners also relied upon the letters of intent, claim to have been issued by the respondents.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties and taking into consideration the pleas raised by them, we find that on an earlier occasion, a large number of commission agents/dealers had approached this Court claiming the allotment of plots. The aforesaid writ petitions were disposed of by this Court vide order dated April 20,2006 passed in CWP No.17313 of 2004 (M/s Ram Sarup Radha Ram and others v. The State of Punjab and others) and other connected matters with a liberty to the petitioners to file individual representations within a period of two months from the date of staking their claim for the allotment of sites in the New Anaz Mandi.

The Administrator, New Mandi Township, State of Punjab (respondent No.4) in the aforesaid writ petitions was required to dispose of the said claim of each of the petitioners and take appropriate decision by passing a detailed and speaking order. We further clarify that eligibility of all the applicants shall be determined, in accordance with law.

However, it must be noticed that the learned counsel appearing for the present petitioners claim that the case of the present petitions is distinguishable from the petitioners in M/s Ram Sarup Radha Ram's case (supra) and other connected matters, inasmuch as, the writ petitioners in the aforesaid cases were treated to be not eligible persons, whereas, even the respondents have treated the present petitioners as eligible.

We must also take note of the contention raised by the learned counsel for the respondents that there is no material available on the record of the present petitions that the present petitioners can be treated as eligible.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we are satisfied that since a large number of persons had already been relegated to seek their claim before the official respondents earlier, therefore, it would not be appropriate to single out the petitioners for adjudication of their claim, at this stage. Neither it would be appropriate to direct the official respondents to allot the plots to the petitioners by adjudicating their claim separately from the persons who have already approached them in view of the directions of this Court earlier.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petitions also, with a liberty to the petitioners to file individual representations within a period of two months from today staking their claim for the allotment of sites in New Anaj Mandi. In the aforesaid representations, the petitioners would be required to give all such details which show that they are eligible for allotment of sites in the New Anaz Mandi as per the rules. The petitioners shall also be required to append all such material which may be relevant to prove the facts.

If any such representation is made to the Administrate, New Mandi Township, State of Punjab, then the aforesaid representation shall consider the claim of each of the petitioners and shall take appropriate decision by passing a detailed and speaking order, within a period of four months thereafter.

Till the matter is finally decided by the respondents, the petitioners would be at liberty to carry on their business in the old sites.

Before we part with this order, we issue further directions that all the allotments in New Anaj Mandi, Mansa to all the eligible persons so found after determination, shall be done simultaneously.

The present petitions stand disposed of accordingly.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10557 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Jagan Nath Pawan Kumar and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10618 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Sadhu Ram Mangat Rai, Mansa and others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10556 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Des Raj Ashok Kumar and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10555 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Janak Raj Vijay Kumar and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10554 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Jot Ram Inder Sain and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10539 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Suridner Kumar Vijay Kumar and others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10534 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD Judge

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP NO.10811 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION: July 21, 2006

M/s Pala Ram Raghbir Chand, Mansa and others ....Petitioners

VERSUS

State of Punjab and others

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

For order see, CWP No.10534 of 2006 (M/s Asa Ram Parbh Dyal and others v. State of Punjab and others), decided on July 21, 2006.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 21,2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

KD 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.