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 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Ludhiana Hand Tools Association vs State Of Punjab And Others on 22 February, 2013

Bench: A.K. Sikri, Ajay Kumar Mittal

C.M. Nos. 1922-23 of 2013 in                                          -1-
CWP No. 4881 of 2011


   IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

                                      C.M. Nos. 1922-23 of 2013 in
                                      CWP No. 4881 of 2011
                                      Date of Decision : 22.02.2013

             Ludhiana Hand Tools Association, Ludhiana.

                                                             ...Petitioner

                                Versus

             State of Punjab and others
                                                          ...Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE
       HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY KUMAR MITTAL

Present: Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate,
         with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate,
         for the applicant/respondent No. 2.

             Mr. Ashok Aggarwal, Advocate General,
             with Mr. Alok Jain, Additional Advocate General, Punjab,
             and Mr. Arvind Seth, Advocate.

                                  ****
A.K. SIKRI, C.J. (ORAL)
C.M. No. 1922 of 2013

Application for exemption from filing the certified copies of the annexures is allowed.

C.M. No. 1923 of 2013

This application is filed for seeking clarification of orders dated 19.07.2011. By the said order, the Punjab State Electricity Regulatory Commission was asked to look into the matter and submit its report within two months. It was also stated in the said order that "Till then the Corporation will not make recruitment proposed to be made".

C.M. Nos. 1922-23 of 2013 in -2-

CWP No. 4881 of 2011

2. It is clear from the above that the order was to be operative till the submission of the report. The report was submitted. Thereafter, the petitioner did not approach for continuation of the order. The respondent had earlier also filed an application seeking permission to make recruitment of Linemen and vide orders dated 09.11.2011, permission for recruiting 1000 Linemen was given. Therefore, the order is unambiguous and hardly needs any clarification.

3. Disposed of.

(A.K. SIKRI) CHIEF JUSTICE (AJAY KUMAR MITTAL) JUDGE 22.02.2013 Amodh