Raj Kumar v. Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board And ORS.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH CWP No. 22965 of 2016 Decided on : 07.11.2016 Raj Kumar . . . Petitioner

Versus

Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board and others . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN PRESENT: Mr. Anil Chawla, Advocate for the petitioner.

**** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) The petitioner in the present writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, inter alia, seeking a writ in the nature of Certiorari, quashing the auction held on 30th August, 2016, in favour of respondents No.4 to 12, which is against the Punjab State Agricultural Marketing Board (Sale and Transfer of Plots) Rules, 1999 as amended in January (2008), and Rules, 2014. A further prayer for direction to the respondents to consider the case of the petitioner for allotment of a shop in the Fish Market, Amritsar, as per Rules, 1999, has also been made. 2.

After arguing for sometime, learned counsel for the petitioner states that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before the concerned respondents, raising all the pleas as have been sought to be raised in the present writ petition. However, a prayer was made that a time bound direction be issued to the concerned respondents to decide the same, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law. Jawala Ram 2016.12.22 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

CWP No. 22965 of 2016 - 2 - 3.

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioner, perusing the averments made in the present petition and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the controversy, we dispose of the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a detailed and comprehensive representation before respondent No.2 within a period of 15 days from the date of receipt of certified copy of the order. The same shall be decided by respondent No.2 within a period of next one month, after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner and the concerned respondents and by passing a speaking order, in accordance with law.

(AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) November 07, 2016 JUDGE J.Ram Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No Jawala Ram 2016.12.22 16:13 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh