DT
PT
Subscribe To Print Edition About The Tribune Code Of Ethics Download App Advertise with us Classifieds
search-icon-img
search-icon-img
Advertisement

HC raps Punjab in fair price shop licence case, orders Rs 25K costs

  • fb
  • twitter
  • whatsapp
  • whatsapp
featured-img featured-img
The Punjab and Haryana High Court. Tribune photo
Advertisement

Rapping the State of Punjab for abusing the process of law, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has imposed Rs 25,000 costs on a Deputy Director in an eight-year-old case involving the transfer of a fair price shop licence.

Advertisement

The admonition came after the Bench observed the petitioner’s transfer request was rejected on the grounds of delay by the Deputy Director even though the instructions permitted the consideration of the matter by the head office.

Making it clear that the facts of the case were “very interesting” and projected “very sorry state of affairs as well”, Justice Jasgurpreet Singh Puri added the costs would be paid personally by the Deputy Director who passed the impugned order and “not from the State Exchequer”. The Bench for the purpose set two-month deadline.

Advertisement

The matter was placed before Justice Puri’s Bench after Shivam Jindal through counsel Vijay K Jindal and Vipul Jindal moved the high court following the rejection of his plea for the transfer of the licence after his grandmother’s death.

Justice Puri observed that the petitioner’s application was filed three years and eight months after his grandmother’s demise. But the matter was governed by instructions dated August 12, 2022. Among other things, these provided that a representation for licence transfer filed beyond the prescribed three-month period was required to be forwarded to the head office for consideration rather than dismissed outright.

Advertisement

“Instead of forwarding the same to the head office for consideration in accordance with instructions, (the Deputy Director) dismissed the same. Such kind of approach is not only contrary to the instructions which she herself referred to but it also violates the rights of the petitioner under Article 21 of the Constitution of India since the petitioner was only seeking the consideration of the transfer of the ownership of a fair price shop for earning his livelihood.”

Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
tlbr_img1 Classifieds tlbr_img2 Videos tlbr_img3 Premium tlbr_img4 E-Paper tlbr_img5 Shorts