State Of Punjab And Others v. M/S Aggarwal Overseas

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

CHANDIGARH 227-8 Decided on : 17.09.2025 1.

STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S AGGARWAL OVERSEAS . . . Respondents 2.

LPA-1806-2023 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S KRISHNA AGRO INDUSTRIES AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents 3.

LPA-1807-2023 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S GURU KIRPA RICE AND AGRO INDUSTRIES . . . Respondents 4.

LPA-502-2024 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S BHAGWATI RICE AND GEN MILLS . . . Respondents 5.

LPA-1978-2023 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S MAA BHAGWATI RICE MILLS AND ANOTHER . . . Respondents 6.

LPA-474-2024 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

and connected cases M/S JAI MAA MANSA RICE MILLS . . . Respondents 7.

LPA-475-2024 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S KRISHNA INDUSTRIES . . . Respondents 8.

LPA-501-2024 (O&M) STATE OF PUNJAB AND OTHERS . .Appellants

Versus

M/S DAKSH RICE MILLS . . . Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS SURI PRESENT: Mr. Rahul Rampal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. Mr. Vikram Preet Arora, Advocate for respondent in LPA-501 & 502-2024.

Mr. K. K. Gupta, Advocate for respondents-FCI.

Mr. Shiv Kumar, Advocate for respondent in LPA-1806-2023.

Mr. Mohit Garg, Advocate for respondent in LPA-1807-2023.

Mr. Amandeep Singh Jawandha, Advocate for the respondents in LPA-474-2024 & LPA-1977-2023. Mr. Hitender Kansal, Advocate for respondent No. 1 in LPA-1978-2023.

Mr. Peeush Gagneja, Advocate for respondents in LPA-1977-2023 & LPA-475-2024. **** HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI , J. (Oral) 1.

Present bunch of appeals, the details of which are mentioned in the heading, involve common point of law and common set of facts, hence,

and connected cases they are being dealt together.

2.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that while passing the order dated 12.10.2023 in CWP No. 23245 of 2023, the learned Single Judge did not take into consideration the order blacklisting certain firms, which was a condition to declare them "defaulter" so that not to allow them to participate in the milling policy, but, by efflux of time as, every year the allotment is to be made on the basis of the terms and conditions issued in the fresh policy, by keeping the question of law open, the present appeal may kindly be disposed of having been not pressed any further. 3.

Ordered accordingly.

4.

Pending civil miscellaneous application(s) including application for condonation of delay, if any, stand disposed of. 5.

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of connected case.

(HARSIMRAN SINGH SETHI) JUDGE ( VIKAS SURI ) JUDGE 17.09.2025 Riya Whether speaking/reasoned:

Yes/No Whether Reportable:

Yes/No