← Library
High Court of Punjab and HaryanaCWP/3070/2016dismissed

Jagjit Singh v. Union Of India And ORS

2016-03-22Mr. Justice R.P. Nagrath2 pages

VINOD KUMAR 2016.03.28 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.3070 of 2016 (O&M) [ 1 ] ****

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP No.3070 of 2016 (O&M) Date of decision:22.03.2016 Jagjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Unino of India and others

...Respondents

CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jain

Present:

Mr. Harkaran Singh, Advocate, for Mr. B.S.Bhalla, Advocate, for the petitioner. ***** Rakesh Kumar Jain, J. (Oral) In this case, the following order was passed by this Court on 16.02.2016:- "The case set up by the petitioner is that the respondents have illegally declined the permission to renew the registration of the petitioner to practice as a Pharmacist in the State of Punjab. He has basically challenged the information supplied to him on 31.12.2015 by the Public Information Officer of the Board of Ayurvedic and Unani Systems of Medicine, Punjab. The said information cannot be treated by this Court as impugned order for the purpose of quashing because if there is any order of rejection, it would still be on the record of the respondents.

Faced with this difficulty, the petitioner prays for an adjournment in order to obtain the order of rejection

VINOD KUMAR 2016.03.28 11:43 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh CWP No.3070 of 2016 (O&M) [ 2 ] **** from the respondents to challenge the same in this petition.

Adjourned sine die.

List this case as and when the needful is done. Counsel for the petitioner has submitted that vide order Annexure P-13, attached with CM No.3476 of 2016, the rejection order has been passed.

In view thereof, the present petition is not maintainable in its present form as the petitioner has to challenge the order of rejection as well. Faced with this situation, counsel for the petitioner prays for withdrawal of the present petition, with liberty to challenge the rejection order in accordance with law.

Dismissed as withdrawn.

Liberty is granted.

March 22, 2016 (Rakesh Kumar Jain) vinod* Judge