Full Text
Translation output
01)
$-28&29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA91/2013
SINCHANA FUEL STATION & ANR. . .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhra, Adv.
$-28&29 HIGH COURT OF DELHI
LPA91/2013
SINCHANA FUEL STATION & ANR. . .....Appellants
Through: Ms. Radhika Chandrashekhra, Adv.
VERSUS
UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .....Respondents
Through: Mr. M.M.Kalra, Adv. for I.O.C.
Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI.
~ LPA 92/2013 DAS PETROLEUM AND ANR .....Appellants
Through
Through: Mr. M.M.Kalra, Adv. for I.O.C.
Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI.
~ LPA 92/2013 DAS PETROLEUM AND ANR .....Appellants
Through
VERSUS
UOI AND ORS
Respondent
Through: Mr. M.M.Kalra, Adv. for I.O.C.- Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI.
Respondent
Through: Mr. M.M.Kalra, Adv. for I.O.C.- Mr. Jatan Singh, CGSC for UOI.
CORAM:
HON'BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
18.02.2013 A similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in LPA
No.92/2013 and the same was disposed of in the following manner:-
"CM No. 1395/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
2013:DHC:8478-DB CM No.1394/2013 (Delay in filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA No.59/2013 and CM No.1393/2013 (Stay)
The appellant has approached this Court questioning the following orders of the learned Single Judge dated
08.11.2012 and 02.1.2013, which read as under:
Order dated 08.11.2012 Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner craves leave to withdraw the aforementioned writ petitions subject to the interim order
4 dated 09.01.2012 passed in WP (C) 7689/2011being made applicable to the petitioners in the said writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the respondents say that they have no objection if the same order is made applicable to the said petitioners as well. It is ordered accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners will, however, be permitted to assist the court in WP(C) 7689/2011. It is also made clear that if the petitioner in WP(C) 7689/2011 succeeds, the same order will follow in the captioned writ petitions as well.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Order dated 02.1.2013 Learned senior counsel on instructions says that petitioner nos.2 to 5 can be deleted from the array of parties. Similarly he seeks deletion of respondent nos. 6 to 8. He further submits that prayer clauses (c) to (e) are also not pressed and can accordingly be deleted.
V
As prayed, it is ordered accordingly.
After some arguments, what has been brought to my notice is that, a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla bearing no.WP(C)
3723/2010 by the State Federation. The said writ petition was titled as : Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers
Association
Vs. Union of India and Others. In the said writ petition, a Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by a
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE V.K. JAIN
18.02.2013 A similar matter came up for consideration before this Court in LPA
No.92/2013 and the same was disposed of in the following manner:-
"CM No. 1395/2013 (Exemption)
Allowed, subject to just exceptions.
CM stands disposed of.
2013:DHC:8478-DB CM No.1394/2013 (Delay in filing)
For the reasons stated in the application, delay in filing the appeal is condoned.
LPA No.59/2013 and CM No.1393/2013 (Stay)
The appellant has approached this Court questioning the following orders of the learned Single Judge dated
08.11.2012 and 02.1.2013, which read as under:
Order dated 08.11.2012 Ms. Radhika Chandrasekhar, learned counsel for the petitioner craves leave to withdraw the aforementioned writ petitions subject to the interim order
4 dated 09.01.2012 passed in WP (C) 7689/2011being made applicable to the petitioners in the said writ petitions.
Learned counsel for the respondents say that they have no objection if the same order is made applicable to the said petitioners as well. It is ordered accordingly.
Learned counsel for the petitioners will, however, be permitted to assist the court in WP(C) 7689/2011. It is also made clear that if the petitioner in WP(C) 7689/2011 succeeds, the same order will follow in the captioned writ petitions as well.
The writ petitions are disposed of accordingly.
Order dated 02.1.2013 Learned senior counsel on instructions says that petitioner nos.2 to 5 can be deleted from the array of parties. Similarly he seeks deletion of respondent nos. 6 to 8. He further submits that prayer clauses (c) to (e) are also not pressed and can accordingly be deleted.
V
As prayed, it is ordered accordingly.
After some arguments, what has been brought to my notice is that, a writ petition was filed in the High Court of Himachal Pradesh at Shimla bearing no.WP(C)
3723/2010 by the State Federation. The said writ petition was titled as : Himachal Pradesh Petroleum Dealers
Association
Vs. Union of India and Others. In the said writ petition, a Single Judge of the Himachal Pradesh High Court by a
ORDER
dated 17.05.2012 has issued certain directions to the respondents. The operative direction are contained in paragraph 42 of the said judgment. I am informed that the respondents have preferred an appeal before the
Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh, which is coming up for hearing shortly.
It goes without saying that both parties shall have to abide by the final judgment in the said writ petition.
With the aforesaid observations, the captioned writ petition is not pressed any further. The captioned writ petition and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
As far as orders dated 02.1.2013 is concerned, it appears that the said writ petition was filed by a
Federation of All India Petroleum Traders, Delhi and fl
Others and the appellant was not arrayed as a party and in the absence of any application seeking leave to file appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
As far as orders dated 08.11.2012 is concerned, it appears that the petition filed by the appellant was withdrawn on the ground that the appellant would abide by the order which may be passed in
W.P.(C)No.7689/20 11. However, vide subsequent order dated 02.1.2013, the said writ petition filed by Federation was also withdrawn. Apparently, an order was passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in
W.P.(C)No.3723/2010 on the very same issue which was involved in these petitions. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the withdrawal of the writ petition has caused great hardship to the appellant who could not vindicate his grievance in the writ petition filed by it.
In our opinion, so far as withdrawal of writ petition is concerned, it being without giving any liberty, the LPA is not maintainable.
Notwithstanding, having faced with the situation that there is no relief for the appellant who withdrew the writ petition with a hope that the WP(C) No.7689/2011 will be decided on its own merit, we are of the considered view that though we are not entertaining the appeal, while dismissing the appeal, we give liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge in respect of all grievances. The said application shall be considered on its own merit, after hearing the parties."
Both these appeals are disposed of in the same manner.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 18, 2013 'Sn' )
Division Bench of Himachal Pradesh, which is coming up for hearing shortly.
It goes without saying that both parties shall have to abide by the final judgment in the said writ petition.
With the aforesaid observations, the captioned writ petition is not pressed any further. The captioned writ petition and all pending applications are disposed of accordingly.
As far as orders dated 02.1.2013 is concerned, it appears that the said writ petition was filed by a
Federation of All India Petroleum Traders, Delhi and fl
Others and the appellant was not arrayed as a party and in the absence of any application seeking leave to file appeal, we are not inclined to interfere with the same.
As far as orders dated 08.11.2012 is concerned, it appears that the petition filed by the appellant was withdrawn on the ground that the appellant would abide by the order which may be passed in
W.P.(C)No.7689/20 11. However, vide subsequent order dated 02.1.2013, the said writ petition filed by Federation was also withdrawn. Apparently, an order was passed by the Himachal Pradesh High Court in
W.P.(C)No.3723/2010 on the very same issue which was involved in these petitions. The counsel for the appellant has submitted that the withdrawal of the writ petition has caused great hardship to the appellant who could not vindicate his grievance in the writ petition filed by it.
In our opinion, so far as withdrawal of writ petition is concerned, it being without giving any liberty, the LPA is not maintainable.
Notwithstanding, having faced with the situation that there is no relief for the appellant who withdrew the writ petition with a hope that the WP(C) No.7689/2011 will be decided on its own merit, we are of the considered view that though we are not entertaining the appeal, while dismissing the appeal, we give liberty to the appellant to file an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge in respect of all grievances. The said application shall be considered on its own merit, after hearing the parties."
Both these appeals are disposed of in the same manner.
CHIEF JUSTICE
V.K. JAIN, J FEBRUARY 18, 2013 'Sn' )