Punjab-Haryana High Court
Lawyers Initiative Through Its Member ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 4 February, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP-15133-1996
Date of decision:-04.02.2014
Lawyers Initiative through its member Veena Kumari,
Advocate and member Lawyers' Initiative c/o Punjab and
Haryana High Court Bar Association, Chandigarh.
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr. R.S. Bains, Advocate,
for the petitioner.
Mr. Harsimran S. Sethi, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
for respondents No. 1 and 2.
Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate.
****
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, C.J. (ORAL)
The matter was taken up by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP (C)-13408-99 titled as Hero Cycles Ltd. Vs. International Cycle & Strips Ltd. filed against the order dated 18.05.1999 in LPA-289-1998 and other connected matters and, thus, the present petition vide order dated 10.09.1999 was directed to be heard after the decision in the Special Leave Petition. The said Special Leave Petition alongwith other ones was converted into Civil Appeal Nos. 1090-1095 of 2000 and was decided on 14.02.2000 on account of a memorandum of settlement arrived at in those proceedings. The effect of that order was that the original writ petitions themselves were dismissed as Sharma Amodh 2014.02.06 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh CWP-15133-1996 2 withdrawn and, thus, the Hon'ble Supreme Court set aside the orders passed therein as well as in the Letter Patent Appeals.
In so far as the present petition is concerned, it is pointed out by learned Additional Advocate General for the State of Punjab that the policy in question was substituted by another policy of 2008 which has also been substituted by a policy of 2013. Not only that, the stand of the State of Punjab, as placed before the Court, shows that the main grievance regarding discretionary quota of the Chief Minister does not survive as the Cabinet in a meeting held on 14.02.1997 had decided in principle to abolish all discretionary quotas of the Ministers and the Chief Minister and departments had been instructed accordingly.
In view of the aforesaid facts, we are not inclined to entertain this petition any further and dispose of the same.
At this stage, learned counsel for the petitioner states that they are assailing the allotments already made, but we not are inclined to entertain this issue in view of what has been the fate of the matter in the Hon'ble Supreme Court as also the decision taken by the State Government qua the policy and the fresh policies having come into force.
All the pending miscellaneous applications also stand disposed of.
(SANJAY KISHAN KAUL) CHIEF JUSTICE (ARUN PALLI) JUDGE 04.02.2014 Amodh Sharma Amodh 2014.02.06 10:30 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document chandigarh