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 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ram Niwas Etc vs Indian Oil Corporation Etc on 5 December, 2019

Author: Sanjay Kumar

Bench: Sanjay Kumar

                                    346

       IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                    AT CHANDIGARH

                                              CWP-16140-1998
                                              Date of decision: 05.12.2019

Ram Niwas and others                                ......Petitioners.

                         vs.

Indian Oil Corporation and ors                      ......Respondents.

CORAM: - HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR

Present: -   None for the petitioners.

             Mr. Deep Prabhu, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2.

             Mr. Rajesh Gaur, Additional Advocate General, Haryana.
                        ......

Sanjay Kumar, J. (ORAL)

This writ petition was taken up for hearing on 29.11.2019 and at the request of Mr. Prappan Uppal, learned counsel for Mr. Abhilaksh Grover, learned counsel for the petitioners, the matter was adjourned to 5.12.2019.

Today, when the matter is taken up for hearing, learned counsel for the petitioners would again request for further time.

However, perusal of the petition reflects that the petitioners, 47 in number, wanted directions to be issued to the Indian Oil Corporation Limited to provide them employment as per the policy of the Haryana Government as their lands were acquired for setting up an oil refinery at Panipat.

Mr. Rajesh Gaur, learned Additional Advocate General, Haryana, and Mr. Deep Prabhu, learned counsel for respondents No. 1 and 2, would point out that no commitment was extended to the land oustees with regard to providing them employment and only a preference 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 11:52:50 ::: CWP-16140-1998 -2- was shown to them, all other things being equal.

Given the aforestated facts, it is not possible that the petitioners would still be awaiting the result of this case to secure means of livelihood. That is perhaps the reason why none of the petitioners contacted the learned counsel despite the matter being adjourned on the last occasion.

The writ petition is accordingly dismissed for non- prosecution.

No order as to costs.

(SANJAY KUMAR) JUDGE 05.12.2019 preeti whether speaking/non speaking yes/no whether reportable/non reportable yes/no 2 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 08-12-2019 11:52:51 :::