Harpal Singh v. Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies And Consumer Affairs, Punjab

VINOD KUMAR 2016.03.15 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.17988 and 17990 of 2015 [ 1 ] *****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH (1) CWP No.17988 of 2015 Date of decision:11.03.2016 Sh. Harpal Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab

...Respondents

(2) CWP No.17990 of 2015 Date of decision:11.03.2016 Smt. Joginder Kaur

...Petitioner

Versus

Commissioner, Food, Civil Supplies and Consumer Affairs, Punjab

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. H.S.Bajwa, Advocate, for the petitioner(s).

***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) This order shall dispose of two petitions bearing CWP Nos.17988 and 17990 of 2015 as the facts and issue involved in both the cases are same.

In both the petitions, the petitioners have impugned the order(s), cancelling the license(s) without following the principle of natural justice. On 01.10.2015, the following order was passed by this Court:- "Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the impugned order has been passed without issuing any show cause notice whereas it is specifically mentioned in the order that show

VINOD KUMAR 2016.03.15 10:08 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP Nos.17988 and 17990 of 2015 [ 2 ] ***** cause notice has been issued and it was not contradicted by the petitioner in the grounds of appeal filed before the appellate authority. However, learned counsel for the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to seek instructions from his client in this regard.

On his request, adjourned to 16.11.2015."

Thereafter, both the cases have been adjourned repeatedly on the asking of the petitioner(s) as they could not contradict the fact that show cause notice was given before passing the impugned order. Since the only argument raised by counsel for the petitioner(s) was that the show cause notice was not given by the respondents before passing the impugned order, which has been found factually incorrect, I do not find any reason to interfere in these petitions. Consequently, both the writ petitions are hereby dismissed. March 11, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge