Take notes as you read a judgment using our Virtual Legal Assistant and get email alerts whenever a new judgment matches your query (Query Alert Service). Try out our Premium Member services — Free for one month.
Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S A & V Enterprise Llp vs State Of Punjab & Others on 21 February, 2024
Author: Arun Palli
Bench: Arun Palli
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024443-DB
CWP No.24264 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected matters 1
2024:PHHC:024443-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
AT CHANDIGARH
Date of Decision :21.02.2024
CWP No.24264 of 2017 (O&M)
M/s A & V Enterprise LLP
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CWP No.24270 of 2017 (O&M)
M/s Kshitij Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CWP No.24273 of 2017 (O&M)
M/s A & V Enterprise LLP
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CWP No.24276 of 2017 (O&M)
M/s Kshitij Promoters Pvt. Ltd.
......Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...... Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL
Present : Mr. J.S.Bhatia, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms. Anu Chatrath Kapoor, Addl. A.G. Punjab.
Mr. R.S.Khosla, Sr. Advocate with
Mr. Yogender Verma, Advocate for respondents No.3
Mr. ADS Jattana, Advocate for respondent No.5
in CWP-24276-2017
1 of 4
::: Downloaded on - 23-02-2024 01:33:34 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024443-DB
CWP No.24264 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected matters 2
2024:PHHC:024443-DB
ARUN PALLI, J. (Oral):
For, concededly, the matter in issue, in this batch of four petitions,
is identical, therefore, these are being decided by a common order and
judgment. However, the facts are being derived from CWP No.24264 of 2017.
The petitioner has prayed for the following substantive relief:-
“Civil Writ Petition under Article 226/227 of the
Constitution of India seeking issuance writ especially in the
nature of Certorari quashing the impugned auction held on
dated 11.10.2017, pursuant to the advertisement dated
06.10.2017 (Annexure P-2) whereby the site has been
auctioned to respondent no.5 being wholly illegal, arbitrary
and against well settled principles of law.
Further for issuance of a writ in the nature of
Mandamus directing the respondent authorities not to
confirm the sale and not to issue allotment letter during
pendency of the writ petition.
Further for issuance of the writ in the nature of
the mandamus directing the respondents to decide the
representation dated 13.10.2017 (Annexure P-7) submitted
by the petitioner.”
Learned counsel for the petitioner, in reference to the order dated
26.10.2017, submits that a Co-ordinate Bench, while issuing notice of motion,
had observed that the allotments, if any, made pursuant to the impugned e-
auction, would be subject to further orders of this Court. It is not disputed that
since the matter remained pending, no formal allotment(s) has so far been
made by the respondents-authority. It is submitted that prior to the institution
of this petition, the petitioner had even served the respondents-authority with a
2 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:33:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024443-DB
CWP No.24264 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected matters 3
2024:PHHC:024443-DB
representation dated 13.10.2017 (P7), qua its concerns/grievances. But to no
avail. In the connected three petitions, no response has been submitted on
behalf of the respondents-authority, so far. Therefore, learned counsel for the
parties are ad idem that in the given circumstances, it would rather be
expedient, if all these petitions are disposed of, to enable the competent
authority to take cognizance of the representation (ibid) that is alleged to have
been submitted by the petitioner(s) so that necessary orders in accordance with
law could be passed thereon.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits, for the matter is
pending for a considerable time, the respondents-authority be directed to
consider and decide the same, within a specified time.
In response, Mr. R.S.Khosla, learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.3 submits that the competent authority would take cognizance
of the representation, moved by the petitioner, at the earliest. And appropriate
orders, in accordance with law, would be passed, within a period of 8 weeks
from today. Further, before any such orders are passed, all the stakeholders
including the petitioner(s) would also be heard. And the petitioner(s) would be
communicated the date and time to appear before the competent authority.
In the wake of the position, as sketched out above, the petitions
are accordingly disposed of, in terms of the statement made by learned counsel
for the parties.
This Court is sanguine that the competent authority would
consider the claim of the petitioner in the right earnest. And the appropriate
orders shall be passed within the time indicated by learned Senior counsel for
respondent No.3.
3 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:33:35 :::
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024443-DB
CWP No.24264 of 2017 (O&M) and other connected matters 4
2024:PHHC:024443-DB
Needless to assert that this order shall not constitute an expression
of opinion on the merits of the case of either party, for, as indicated above, the
authority shall examine the grievance of the petitioner(s), strictly in accordance
with law.
(ARUN PALLI)
JUDGE
(VIKRAM AGGARWAL)
JUDGE
21.02.2024
Manoj Bhutani
Whether speaking/reasoned Yes/No
Whether reportable Yes/No
Neutral Citation No:=2024:PHHC:024443-DB
4 of 4
::: Downloaded on – 23-02-2024 01:33:35 :::
[ad_2]