Punjab-Haryana High Court
M/S Balak Gazes Oxygen Gas Plant & ... vs State Of Punjab And Others on 24 February, 2010
Author: Surya Kant
Bench: Surya Kant
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
Review Application No.13 of 2010 in
Civil Writ Petition No.19007 of 2002
Date of Decision : February 24, 2010.
M/s Balak Gazes Oxygen Gas Plant & another .....Petitioners
versus
State of Punjab and others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE SURYA KANT.
Present : Mr.J.S.Toor, Advocate, for the petitioners.
Mr.B.S.Chahal, DAG, Punjab for the applicant-respondents.
Mr.Inderjeet Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
-.-
1. Whether Reporters of Local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?
2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?
---
ORDER
Surya Kant, J. (Oral) This Review Application seeks to recall the order dated 10.12.2008 whereby the writ petition was disposed of vide a consent order which reads as follows:
"Learned counsel for the parties are in agreement that the requisite amount of subsidy has already been released and paid to the petitioner under the interim orders of this Court.
In view of the fact that substantial relief, as prayed for in this writ petition, has already been granted under the R.A.No.13 of 2010 in C.W.P.No.19007 of 2002 2 interim orders, those directions are made absolute and the writ petition is disposed of as having become infructuous."
The Review Application has now been moved, inter-alia, on the ground that the learned State counsel was not authorised to make such a concession before this Court.
Having heard learned counsel for the parties and after going through the averments made in the Review Application and the reply thereto as well as the entire material on record, I am satisfied that the concession made by the learned Additional Advocate General, Punjab, was not based upon the correct and complete instructions and was made inadvertently on a misconstruction of the interim order dated 20.10.2003. The concession made by him has far reaching consequences on the State Exchequer as well.
For the reasons afore-stated, the Review Application is allowed; the order dated 10.12.2008 is recalled and the writ petition is restored to its original number and file. However, the interim order dated 20.10.2003 shall continue to operate till further orders.
It is further clarified that the plea raised by learned counsel for the petitioner that the State counsel's concession was based upon a conscious decision taken by the State Government to release the subsidies to all the industries like the non-applicant-petitioners who have been running for 5 years, is a contention touching the merits of the case and shall be considered at an appropriate stage.
R.A.No.13 of 2010 in C.W.P.No.19007 of 2002 3 Since the subsidy has already been paid to the non-applicant- petitioner, no coercive steps to recover the same shall be taken during the pendency of the writ petition.
The Registry is directed to list the writ petition as per roster.
24-02-2010 (SURYA KANT) Mohinder JUDGE