Punjab-Haryana High Court
All India Lpg Distributors Federation ... vs Union Of India And Others on 24 March, 2014
Bench: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Arun Palli
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Letters Patent Appeal No.469 of 2014 (O&M)
DATE OF DECISION: 24.03.2014
All India LPG Distributors Federation (Punjab) and others
.....Appellants
versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ARUN PALLI
Present: Mr.Sanjeev Pandit and Mr. Balbir Kumar
Saini, Advocates for the appellants
..
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, CHIEF JUSTICE: (Oral) CM-1151-2014 (seeking exemption):
Allowed subject to just exceptions. CM-1152-LPA/2014 (For stay) & LPA-469-2014:
Notice of motion.
Mr. Brijeshwar Singh Kanwar, Sr. Standing Counsel for UOI and Mr. Aashish Kapoor, Advocate accept notice for respondent No.1 and respondent No.2, respectively, while Mr. Raman Sharma for respondents No.3 and 4.
On 23.9.2013, while issuing notice of motion in the petition, interim order was granted permitting the process of selection in pursuance to the advertisements to go on, but selection not to be finalized. Thereafter, an order has been passed on 11.3.2014 stating that Chand Parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-469-2014 -2- this writ petition has to be heard along with another petition, vacating the interim order and making the selection subject to the final outcome of the petition.
On a reading of the petition, we are unable to decipher the reasons, as none has been spelt out, as to why the interim order has been vacated/modified. The plea of learned counsels for the respondents is that there was an adjournment slip in the connected matter and, therefore, the learned single Judge was of the view that the matter was being unnecessarily delayed especially when, according to respondents, the members of the appellants were not eligible.
On the other hand, learned counsel for the appellants states that he was ready and willing to address submissions on this writ petition and, thus, the appellants here cannot be prejudiced because the petitioners in the connected matter had sought adjournment and, thus, at least this case should have been decided on merits or a reason given why the interim order has been vacated.
We are in agreement with the submission of the learned counsel for the appellants. If the learned single Judge was of the view that unnecessary adjournment was being sought in CWP No.21168 of 2013 calling for vacation of interim order, then the same principle could not have been applied in the present proceedings, if the counsel for the appellants was ready to address submissions. The Court could have heard the arguments in the present dispute and given a final verdict or, in case it was inclined to vacate the interim order or modify the same, at least some brief reasons ought to have been spelt out.
Chand Parkash 2014.03.25 10:18 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document LPA-469-2014 -3-
It is, thus, not possible for the appellate Court to make out the reason(s) from the order-sheet as to why the interim order has been vacated.
The result of the aforesaid is that vacation of the interim order vide the order dated 11.3.2014 is set aside restoring the original order dated 23.9.2013.
Since according to learned counsels for the respondents the entire work is held up and learned counsel for the appellants also join in the request, we consider it appropriate to direct that CWP No.24254 of 2013 be listed before the learned single Judge for consideration and appropriate orders on 31.03.2014.
The appeal and stay application accordingly stand disposed of.
( SANJAY KISHAN KAUL )
CHIEF JUSTICE
24.03.2014 ( ARUN PALLI)
parkash* JUDGE
Chand Parkash
2014.03.25 10:18
I attest to the accuracy and
integrity of this document