High Court Punjab-Haryana High Court

Rana Gulbir Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 18 November, 2009

Punjab-Haryana High Court
Rana Gulbir Singh vs Union Of India And Another on 18 November, 2009
CWP No.19086 of 2007                                           [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB                      AND HARYANA AT
                CHANDIGARH.



                              C. W. P. No. 19086 of 2007

                              Date of Decision: 18 - 11 - 2009



Rana Gulbir Singh                                      ....Petitioner


                              v.

Union of India and another                             ....Respondents



CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

                              ***

Present:    Mr.Ranjit Sharma, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr.Rajiv Sharma, Advocate
            for respondent No.1.

            None for respondent No.2.

                              ***

KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA, J. (ORAL)

In the present writ petition, petitioner has made the following

prayers:-

“i) issue an appropriate Writ, order directions, especially in

the nature of Mandamus directing the respondent no.2 to

comply with its part of obligation and to start the

commercial operation with the petitioner as the petitioner

was appointed as Distributor for District Taran Tarn for

the distribution of LPG gas by the respondent no.2 and
CWP No.19086 of 2007 [2]

the petitioner, who is alrleady having the required show

room and has constructed the godown as well as has

already completed all the necessary formalities, as per

the terms and conditions and the requirement of the

respondent no.2;

OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE

ii) the respondent no.2 be directed to compensate the

petitioner by refunding the total expenditure incurred by

the petitioner on this account as the respondent no.2 has

failed to start the commercial operation and a huge loss

to the extent of about Rs.10.00 lakh approximately has

been suffered by the petitioner.”

Respondent No.2 against whom relief has been sought is a

private concern. No writ is maintainable against a private company.

Petitioner for redressal of his grievance may take recourse to alternative

remedy available to him under the law. He may approach the police or file a

criminal complaint, if so advised.

Dismissed being not maintainable.

( KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA )
November 18, 2009. JUDGE

RC