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 4]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Amrita Bajaj And Another vs Union Of India And Others on 10 February, 2010

Author: Ajay Kumar Mittal

Bench: Ajay Kumar Mittal

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH


                                                CWP No. 650 of 2010

                                                Date of Decision: 10.2.2010


Amrita Bajaj and another
                                                            ....Petitioners.

                       Versus

Union of India and others
                                                            ...Respondents.


CORAM:-          HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL.


PRESENT: Mr. B.S. Bajwa, Advocate for
         Mr. Vikas Kumar, Advocate for the petitioners.


AJAY KUMAR MITTAL, J.

The petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari for quashing the public notice dated 4.9.2009 (Annexure P-5) whereby the respondents have invited applications for appointment of dealer for existing retail outlet dealership at Shamshdin Chistian Tehsil Jalalabad (West) District Ferozepur ignoring their claim for appointment as a dealer of the said retail outlet.

Learned counsel for the petitioners states that the petitioners may be allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to make a detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondents for the redressal of their grievances.

In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed as withdrawn. It shall, however, be open to the petitioners to make a CWP No. 650 of 2010 -2- detailed and comprehensive representation to the respondents for the redressal of their grievance as has been raised in the present writ petition. In case any such representation is made by the petitioners, the same shall be decided by the respondents by passing a speaking order expeditiously, preferably within a period of two months from the date of its filing after affording an opportunity of hearing to them.

February 10, 2010                                 (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL)
gbs                                                      JUDGE