HC raps Punjab in fair price shop licence case, orders Rs 25K costs
Unlock Exclusive Insights with The Tribune Premium
Take your experience further with Premium access. Thought-provoking Opinions, Expert Analysis, In-depth Insights and other Member Only BenefitsRapping 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.
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.
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.
“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.”