Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 0, Cited by 241]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Radhey Sham Son Of Brij Lal Son Of Sadhu ... vs State Of Punjab Through Secretary To ... on 18 October, 2011

Author: K. Kannan

Bench: K. Kannan

C.W.P. No.19554 of 2011                             -1-

     IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                            CHANDIGARH
                               C.W.P. No.19554 of 2011
                               Date of Decision.18.10.2011

Radhey Sham son of Brij Lal son of Sadhu Ram Pindwali Gali Tehsil and
District Mansa
                                             .....Petitioner
                               Versus

State of Punjab through Secretary to Government of Punjab, Food & Civil
Supplies and Consumer Affairs Department, Punjab Civil Secretariat,
Chandigarh and others
                                              .....Respondents
Present: Mr. K.K. Goel, Advocate
          for the petitioner.

CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

 1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the
    judgment ? No
2.    To be referred to the Reporters or not ? No
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest? No
                                        -.-
K. KANNAN J.(ORAL)

1. The petitioner seeks for a restraint against allotment of paddy for milling to the 10th petitioner. Admittedly, the 10th respondent was a lessee under the petitioner. According to the learned counsel, there is a suit filed by the petitioner against the 10th respondent. His apprehension is that if he fails to deliver paddy, the petitioner will be put to hardship and action will be taken by the authorities against him. I cannot see prima facie anything substantial to take action against the petitioner for any act to which he is involved. The petitioner will have appropriate immunity against any action taken by respondents No.1 to 9 for any default against the 10th respondent.

2. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed of.

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE October 18, 2011 Pankaj*