← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/25062/2016dismissed

Pooja Soi v. Union Of India And ORS

2016-12-05Mr. Justice Surinder Gupta,Mrs Justice Daya Chaudhary2 pages

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA

AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.25062 of 2016 Date of decision: December 05, 2016 Pooja Soi ....Petitioner versus Union of India and others ....Respondents

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMENDRA JAIN *****

Present:

Mr. Nakul Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. ****** AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J. (Oral) 1.

The challenge in this writ petition filed under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India is to the letters dated 08.10.2016 and 04.12.2014 passed by respondents No.3 and 4 respectively (Annexures P-13 & P-12) whereby the name of the petitioner's Firm i.e. M/s A.K. Enterprises has been removed from the approved list of contractors.

2.

Learned counsel for the petitioner submitted that he may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition. However, a prayer was made that the permission be granted to the petitioner to approach respondent No.2 by filing a detailed and comprehensive representation raising all the pleas regarding removal of the Firm i.e. M/s A.K. Enterprises, however, a time bound direction be issued to the said respondent to decide the same after affording an opportunity of hearing to her in accordance with law.

Sonia Kinra 2016.12.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh

Civil Writ Petition No.25062 of 2016 -2- ---- 3.

Dismissed as withdrawn as prayed. However, the petitioner is granted liberty to file a detailed and comprehensive representation along with the relevant supporting material to substantiate her claim as made in the present writ petition before respondent No.2 within fortnight from today. However, it is directed that in the event of representation being filed by the petitioner, the same shall be decided by respondent No.2 in accordance with law by passing a speaking order and after affording an opportunity of hearing to her within a period of next six weeks. (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE (RAMENDRA JAIN) December 05, 2016 JUDGE sonia gugnani Whether speaking/reasoned?

Yes/No Whether reportable?

Yes/No Sonia Kinra 2016.12.06 10:24 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document High Court, Chandigarh