Present : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal Advocate Vs. the State of Punjab and Others - Court Judgment

SooperKanoon Citationsooperkanoon.com/1060487
CourtPunjab and Haryana High Court
Decided OnMar-15-2013
AppellantPresent : Mr. Deepak Aggarwal Advocate
RespondentThe State of Punjab and Others
Excerpt:
in the high court of punjab and haryana at chandigarh civil writ petition no.16606 of 2010 date of decision:15. 3.2013. ram singh .....petitioner. versus the state of punjab and others .....respondents. coram : hon'ble mr.justice rameshwar singh malik present : mr.deepak aggarwal, advocate for the petitioner. mr.pankaj mulwani, dag, punjab for the state. **** rameshwar singh malik j. (oral) learned counsel for the state, while referring to the averments taken in para 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4, submits that the petitioner has got an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under the relevant provisions of law. the averments taken in para 1 of the preliminary submissions in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents no.1 to 4, reads as under:- “that the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the claims commissioner has been challenged in the present petition. this order was passed under the provisions of punjab package deal properties disposal (amendment) act, 2009. the person civil writ petition no.16606 o”2. aggrieved had a right to file an appeal before the financial commissioner revenue as provided u/s 4-e of the amended act of 2009 ibid. the petitioner has filed the present petition without exercising his statutory right to file an appeal. thus, the present petition is not maintainable since the petitioner failed to exercise the efficacious statutory remedy.” in view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the state, coupled with the averments taken in the written statement, the present writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority. however, it is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within a period of 30 days from today, the respondents shall not raise the issue of limitation because the petitioner had been bonafide pursuing this litigation, before this court. disposed of accordingly. (rameshwar singh malik) judge 15 3.2013 ak sharma
Judgment:

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Civil Writ Petition No.16606 of 2010 Date of Decision:

15. 3.2013.

Ram Singh .....Petitioner.

versus The State of Punjab and others .....Respondents.

CORAM : HON'BLE Mr.JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present : Mr.Deepak Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.

Mr.Pankaj Mulwani, DAG, Punjab for the State.

**** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK J.

(oral) Learned counsel for the State, while referring to the averments taken in para 1 of the preliminary objections of the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, submits that the petitioner has got an equally efficacious alternative remedy of appeal under the relevant provisions of law.

The averments taken in para 1 of the preliminary submissions in the written statement filed on behalf of respondents No.1 to 4, reads as under:- “That the order dated 9.4.2010 passed by the Claims Commissioner has been challenged in the present petition.

This order was passed under the provisions of Punjab Package Deal Properties Disposal (Amendment) Act, 2009.

The person Civil Writ Petition No.16606 o”

2. aggrieved had a right to file an appeal before the Financial Commissioner Revenue as provided u/s 4-E of the amended Act of 2009 ibid.

The petitioner has filed the present petition without exercising his statutory right to file an appeal.

Thus, the present petition is not maintainable since the petitioner failed to exercise the efficacious statutory remedy.”

In view of the above statement made by learned counsel for the State, coupled with the averments taken in the written statement, the present writ petition is disposed of, relegating the petitioner to his alternative remedy of appeal before the appellate authority.

However, it is made clear that if the petitioner approaches the appellate authority within a period of 30 days from today, the respondents shall not raise the issue of limitation because the petitioner had been bonafide pursuing this litigation, before this Court.

Disposed of accordingly.

(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15 3.2013 Ak Sharma