Rajesh Bahl v. State Of Punjab And Others

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH CWP-(PIL)-215-2021 (O&M) Date of decision:- 20.12.2021 Rajesh Bahl

...Petitioner(s)

Versus

State of Punjab and others

...Respondent(s)

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAVI SHANKER JHA, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI

Present:

Mr. H.C. Arora, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Mr. Pradeep Singh Bajwa, Advocate General, Punjab, for respondent No. 1.

Mr. Deepak Balyan, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No. 2.

Mr. Anil Mehta, Senior Standing Counsel, with Mr. Sumeet Jain, Additional Standing Counsel, for respondent No. 3.

* * * * RAVI SHANKER JHA, C.J. (ORAL) The petitioner has filed this public interest litigation alleging that the respondent-authorities have neither taken necessary steps for setting up the designated Courts within their territorial jurisdiction and appointing competent authority as envisaged under Section 7 of the Banning of Unregulated Deposit Schemes Act, 2019, nor responded to his representation/demand notice dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-2).

Mr. Pradeep Singh Bajwa, learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab; Mr. Deepak Balyan, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. Anil Mehta, learned senior standing counsel, appearing for the Union Territory, Chandigarh submit that necessary decision and steps on the petitioner's representation/demand notice dated 12.10.2021 (Annexure P-2), if so required, would be taken by the respondent-authorities as expeditiously as possible.

In view of the aforesaid statement made by learned States counsel for Punjab and Haryana as well as learned senior standing counsel for the Union Territory, Chandigarh, we do not find any reason to entertain the present petition which is accordingly disposed of. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case and, therefore, the AMODH SHARMA 2021.12.21 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document

CWP-(PIL)-215-2021 (O&M) authorities would be at liberty to examine the matter keeping all facts and facets into consideration and thereafter accept or reject the same in accordance with law.

(RAVI SHANKER JHA) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 20.12.2021 Amodh Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No Whether reportable Yes/No AMODH SHARMA 2021.12.21 15:03 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document