← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/21509/2016disposed of

Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Limited. v. U .T Administration & ANR

2016-10-24Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 21509 of 2016 (O&M) Decided on : 24.10.2016 Chandigarh Flour Mills Pvt. Ltd.

. . . Petitioner

Versus

UT Administration, Chandigarh and another . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Tushar Sharma, Advocate for the applicant-petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) CM No. 13518-CWP of 2016 Annexure P-26 filed along with the application is taken on record, subject to all just exceptions. Office to tag the same at the appropriate place.

CM stands disposed of.

CWP No. 21509 of 2016 The petitioner has approached this Court under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking quashing of Clause 7 of the letter dated 19.10.2015 (Annexure P-18) being contrary and violative of the provisions of the scheme dated 19.09.2005 (Annexure P-1) and letter dated 04.10.2016 (Annexure P-24), issued by the UT Administration, whereby, the representation dated 01.08.2016 submitted by the petitioner has been rejected.

2.

learned counsel for the petitioner states that liberty be granted to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation to the concerned-respondent, raising all the pleas as have been sought to be raised Jawala Ram 2016.10.26 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 21509 of 2016 (O&M) - 2 - in the present writ petition. However, a prayer was made that a time bound direction be issued to the concerned-respondent to decide the same expeditiously.

3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, the writ petition is disposed of by observing that in case such a representation is filed by the petitioner within a period of 15 days from today, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner, in accordance with law, within a period of next one month from its filing. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) October 24, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2016.10.26 15:01 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh