Himachal Pradesh High Court
Maa Chamunda Flour Mill vs State Of H.P And Others on 6 February, 2020
Author: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
Bench: Chander Bhusan Barowalia
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA CMP No.1840 of 2020 in CWP No.1338 of 2019 Date of Decision: 6.2.2020 .
Maa Chamunda Flour Mill .....Petitioner Versus State of H.P and others. ......Respondents Coram The Hon'ble Mr. Justice Chander Bhusan Barowalia, Judge.
Whether approved for reporting?1 Yes. For the petitioner: Mr. Vivek Singh Thakur, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Hemanshu Mishra, Addl. Advocate General, Mr. Kamal Kishore and Mr. r Narinder Singh Thakur, Dy. AGs with Mr. Manoj Bagga, Assistant Advocate General, for the respondents-State.
Ms. Manika Mittal, Advocate vice counsel for respondent No.2.
Chander Bhusan Barowalia , Judge (oral).
CMP No.1840 of 2020The present application, has been maintained by the applicant-petitioner, under Rule 13 of H.P. High Court Writ Rules as well as any other enabling provisions of withdrawal of writ petition with liberty to file afresh, if so required.
2. As per the applicant, the present dispute between the parties is with respect to wheat stock lying in the store of the applicant.
The applicant-petitioner is dragged by the respondents on account of colorable exercise of powers. Moreover, the applicant-petitioner is facing 1 Whether reporters of Local Papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes.
::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2020 20:24:34 :::HCHP 2huge loss due to non-allocation of monthly wheat to him. However, the respondents have given an oral assurance to settle the disputes between the parties and further assured that monthly allocation for wheat like .
other flour mills shall be started, subject to withdrawal of writ petition.
No prejudice will be caused to any of the parties, if the present matter is settled. The application is duly supported with an affidavit.
3. On the other hand, learned Additional Advocate General submits that as the present application is formal in nature, no reply is required to be filed and he has no objection in allowing the prayer of the applicant-petitioner.
4. In view of this, the present application is disposed of by ordering that the applicant-petitioner is allowed to withdraw the present writ petition with permission to file afresh, if so desired. Accordingly, the present petition is dismissed as withdrawn, reserving liberty, as prayed for, as and when required. Pending application(s), if any, also stands disposed of.
(Chander Bhusan Barowalia) th 6 February, 2020 Vacation Judge (CS) ::: Downloaded on - 06/02/2020 20:24:34 :::HCHP