M/S P.V. Steel v. State Of Punjab And Others
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Date of decision: 20.05.2024 M/s P.V. Steels through its proprietor Sh. Vinod Kumar Sachdeva @ Vinod Sachdeva .... Petitioner Vs.
State of Punjab and others .... Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present:
Mr. Vikas Bali, Advocate for the petitioner.
ARUN PALLI, J (Oral) A mandamus is prayed for, commanding respondents No.2 and 3 to transfer plot No.149-A measuring 2267 sq. yards, Industrial Focal Point, Amritsar, in terms of the letter dated 30.05.2024 (P-6), appended therewith a draft dated 29.05.2023 for Rs.6,80,100/- as transfer fee. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the plot in question was allotted/transferred to the petitioner by the Corporation on 19.01.2007 (P-2) on lease hold basis. Further, he submits, for the petitioner was unable to carry out any industrial activities (manufacturing of wood products), as per letter of allotment, on account of financial crunch, he entered into agreement to sell dated 23.05.2023 with Deepak Kumar Palewal and his wife Ruby (respondents No.5 and 6).
It is urged that, all that the petitioner prays for is to direct the respondent authorities to grant necessary approval/permissions to transfer the plot in favour of the intending buyers. It is submitted that the authorities have failed to give the necessary approvals on one pretext or the other. And owing to the delay that has been caused, the petitioner continues to suffer.
status of the property updated in online data base on 17.08.2023 to meet the objections raised by the respondent corporation. Thereafter all necessary documents, as asked for, were also submitted. Further, he submits that it is not a case where the authorities are unable to transfer the property owing to any pending dues or litigation etc. But, despite having deposited the transfer fee (Rs.6,80,100/-), the authorities have even failed to initiate the process. So much so, the legal notice dated 01.04.2024 as also the repeated letters addressed to the competent authorities have failed to evoke any response. Hence, this petition.
Served with the advance copy of the petition, Mr. Vipin Pal Yadav, Additional Advocate General, Punjab is present in Court on behalf of respondents No.1 and 4. Mr. Rakesh Roy, Advocate for Mr. Abhilaksh Gaind, Standing counsel for PSIEC is present on behalf of respondents No.2 and 3. At the outset, on instructions, learned counsel for respondents No.2 and 3 submits that let the petitioner, through its authorized representative, appear before the Estate Officer-III, Punjab Small Industries and Export Corporation Limited (respondent No.3) on 27.05.2024 at 11.00 AM, as regards its concerns/grievances. Whereafter, the competent authority shall pass necessary orders, in accordance with law, within a period of four weeks therefrom.
Learned counsel for petitioner is agreeable to the course suggested by the learned counsel for the respondents-PSIEC and submits that let this petition be disposed of in view of the statement made by him. In the wake of the position sketched out above, and in terms of the statements made by learned counsel for the parties, this petition is accordingly disposed of.
This Court is sanguine that the authorities shall consider/examine the matter in the right earnest, and pass appropriate orders, within the time indicated by learned counsel for the respondents-PSIEC, assigning reasons in support thereof.
Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an expression of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated earlier, the competent authority shall examine the grievances of the petitioner, strictly in accordance with law.
(ARUN PALLI) JUDGE (VIKRAM AGGARWAL) JUDGE 20.05.2024 deepak Whether speaking/reasoned :
Yes/No Whether reportable :
Yes/No