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

Tecpro Engineers Private Limited vs The Chief Engineer on 23 February, 2012

Author: Jitendra Chauhan

Bench: Jitendra Chauhan

FAO No.6885 of 2011                                          1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

                                    FAO No.6885 of 2011
                                    Date of decision: 23.2.2012

Tecpro Engineers Private Limited
                                                                 ....Appellant

                  Versus

The Chief Engineer, Panipat Thermal Power Station-2 and another
                                                          ...Respondents


CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE JITENDRA CHAUHAN

Present:    Mr.Anil Sapra, Senior Advocate with
            Mr.Sumeet Goel, Mr.Akshay Bhan and
            Mr.Saif Mohmood, Advocate for the appellant

            Mr.Narender Hooda, Advocate for the respondents

                        *****

Jitendra Chauhan, J.(Oral)

In pursuant to the order dated 15.2.2012, passed by this Court, the learned counsel for the respondents has produced a communication dated 22.2.2012, issued by the Chief Engineer, /PTPS-II, PTPS, HPGCL, Panipat, which is taken on record as Mark "A".

FAO No.6885 of 2011 2

The learned counsel for the respondents refers to the 'blacklisting' order dated 12.9.2011, and contends that from the bare perusal, it is clear that the operation and effect of the said order is restricted to the respondent only. He further states that the information sent in pursuance of the Clause 14.21 of Manual of Office Procedure for Supplies and Disposals of Stores, Government of Haryana, being informative in nature is not binding upon the Institutions/ Organisations, as mentioned in Annexure P-

31. In view of the statement made above, the learned counsel for the appellant states that he does not want to press the present appeal.

Dismissed as not pressed.

However, if the grievance of either of the party still survives, the parties are at liberty to revive the present appeal.



23.02.2012                                    (JITENDRA CHAUHAN)
gsv                                                  JUDGE