Anil And ANR v. Union Territory Of Chandigarh And ORS

CWP-7280-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058979-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-7280-2023 (O&M) Date of Decision: 30.04.2024 Anil and another . . . . Petitioners Vs.

Union Territory Chandigarh and others . . . . Respondents **** CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SUDEEPTI SHARMA ****

Present:

None for the petitioners.

Mr. Sumeet Jain, Advocate and Mr. Prateek Rathee, Advocate for the respondents.

**** SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA, J.(Oral)

1. No one has appeared for the petitioners.

2. Counsel for the respondents/U.T. states that the issue relates to the excise policy of the U.T., Chandigarh for the year 2023-24 which has now elapsed by efflux of time. In view thereof, the issue relating to the said liquor policy has become otiose and does not call for decision.

3. We have considered the submissions, and found that the challenge is to operating of Vend No.83 by respondent No.4 from Shop No.145/5, 145/6 of village Mauli Jagran, Chandigarh being near to residential dwelling units alleging it to be in contravention of the excise policy of U.T. Chandigarh for 2023-24.

4. Since the excise policy itself has elapsed and the liquor vends are freshly auctioned in the new policy, the issue has become academic and does not warrant any further adjudication. MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.07 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-7280-2023 (O&M) 2024:PHHC:058979-DB

5. Writ Petition stands dismissed accordingly.

6. All pending applications also stand disposed of accordingly. (SANJEEV PRAKASH SHARMA) JUDGE (SUDEEPTI SHARMA) JUDGE April 30, 2024 Mohit goyal

1. Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No

2. Whether reportable?

Yes/No MOHIT GOYAL 2024.05.07 12:11 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document