High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pathankot Chambers Of Commerce & … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Pathankot Chambers Of Commerce & … vs State Of Punjab And Others on 5 November, 2009
           IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                         AT CHANDIGARH


                   Civil Writ Petition No.1727 of 2007

                  Date of decision: 5th November, 2009


Pathankot Chambers of Commerce & Industry
                                                               ... Petitioner
                                   Versus
State of Punjab and others
                                                            ... Respondents



CORAM:      HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA


Present:    Mr. Kamaljit Singh, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. D.K. Singal, Advocate for the petitioner.
            Mr. Anil Kumar Sharma, Addl. AG Punjab
            for respondent No.1.
            Mr. A.R. Takkar, Advocate for respondent No.2.
            Mr. D.R. Sharma, Advocate for respondent No.3.


KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

Petitioner, Pathankot Chambers of Commerce & Industry,

earlier filed Civil Writ Petition No. 16240 of 2005, which was decided on

May 16, 2006 and the following order was passed:

“Written statement on behalf of respondent No.2 filed in
Court today is taken on record. A copy thereof has been
handed over to the learned counsel for the petitioner.

A preliminary objection has been raised in the written
statement that the petitioner has not challenged the policy
Annexure P/6.

After hearing the learned counsel for the parties, we
dispose of the present writ petition with a liberty to the
petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action
by challenging the policy Annexure P/6, if so desired.

Civil Writ Petition No.1727 of 2007 2

Disposed of with the liberty aforesaid.

A copy of the order be given dasti on usual charges.”

Present writ petition has been filed without assailing the

policy. In the present petition, petitioner has sought quashing of letter

(Annexure P-6) issued by the Superintendent of Department of Industries,

where it has been communicated that the Government agrees to the

proposal to earmark 20/30 per cent area for industrial housing.

Neither the proposal nor the policy has been placed on

record. Apparently, the present writ petition runs counter to the directions

given by a Division Bench of this Court in order (Annexure P-7). Faced

with this, counsel for the petitioner prays that he may be permitted to

withdraw the present petition, with liberty to assail the policy.

As prayed, dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty aforesaid.

[KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA]
JUDGE
November 5, 2009
rps