Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam v. Electricity Ombudsman Haryana & ANR
In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana, at Chandigarh Letters Patent Appeal No. 368 of 2016(O&M) Date of Decision: 21.07.2016 Dakshin Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam ... Appellant(s)
Versus
The Electricity Ombudsman, Haryana and Another ... Respondent(s) CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Mahesh Grover.
Hon'ble Mr. Justice Shekher Dhawan.
1.
Whether reporters of local newspapers may be allowed to see judgment?
To be referred to reporters or not?
Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
Present:
Mr. M.L.Saggar, Senior Advocate with Mr. Navdeep Singh, Gill, Advocate for the appellant.
Ms. Damanpreet Kaur, Advocate for Mr. Arjun Pratap Atma Ram, Advocate for respondent No.2.
Mahesh Grover, J.
This appeal is directed against the order of the learned Single Judge dated 15.2.2016 dismissing the writ petition for non-prosecution, largely in view of some earlier order passed by the Court making it clear that no further adjournment would be granted. The restoration application filed by the appellant was also dismissed on 23.2.2016. Learned counsel for respondent No.2 has no objection if the writ petition is heard on merits.
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.07.22 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document
Letters Patent Appeal No. 368 of 2016(O&M) After hearing learned counsel for the parties and noticing the fact that default on the day of passing of the order has been satisfactorily explained to the Court and lest the appellant's interest suffers irreparably for want of hearing on merits and purely in the interest of justice and also for the reason that prayer is not being opposed by the respondents, we deem it appropriate to set aside the order passed by the learned Single Judge even though it is seemingly justified in the given set of circumstances. Consequently, the writ petition stands restored to its original status and the same be listed for hearing as per roster. Before parting with the order, we make it clear that the appellant shall not seek any undue indulgence in the matter of adjournments considering that on earlier occasions also, this Court has granted repeated adjournments sought by the appellant. Appeal stands allowed.
(Mahesh Grover) Judge (Shekher Dhawan) Judge July 21, 2016 "DK"
DEEPAK KUMAR BHARDWAJ 2016.07.22 14:55 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document