Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ranvir Singh And Others vs Union Of India And Others on 4 January, 2012
Author: Alok Singh
Bench: Alok Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.100 of 2012
Date of decision: 04.01.2012
Ranvir Singh and others
....Petitioners
Versus
Union of India and others
....Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ALOK SINGH
Present: - Mr. Ashwani Verma, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr. M.S. Tewatia, Advocate, for caveator/respondent No.3.
1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2.Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not?
3.Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
*****
ALOK SINGH, J (ORAL)
Learned counsel for the petitioners, while referring to Annexure P-2, advertisement dated 28.2.2011 Dainik Jagran daily newspaper, has vehemently argued that LPG agency shall be given to the residents of towns/villages of the advertised location; further contends that petitioners are the residents of village Aurangabad, Block Hodal, District Palwal, however, respondent No.3 is the resident of village Bachhara, which is a part of village Gopalgarh; while referring to Annexure P-4, has argued that village Gopalgarh is not a part of village Aurangabad w.e.f. 26.10.2004, therefore, LPG agency ought not to have been granted to respondent No.3. He has further argued that petitioners have moved a representation (Annexure P-8) before the petroleum company pointing out all the irregularities, however, no action has been taken thereon.
Mr. M.S. Tewatia, learned counsel appearing for the caveator, states that still name of respondent No.3 is in the voters' list of assembly segment of village Aurangabad, therefore, he is resident of village Aurangabad.
Be as the case may be, since no decision has been taken on Annexure P-8, I think it proper to direct respondent No.2 to take decision on Annexure P-8 within 30 days from the date certified copy of this order is placed before him. Till decision is taken on Annexure P-8 by speaking order after permitting both the parties to place material before respondent No.2 on the question of residence of petitioners as well as respondent No.3, letter of intent shall not be issued to respondent No.3.
Petition stands disposed of.
(Alok Singh) Judge January 04, 2012 R.S.