Full Text
Translation output
~--
A-13
% 11.08.2011
Present: Mr.Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
+CONT. CAS (C) No. 278/2011
*
The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the order dated
12.08.2010 have not been complied with; vide order dated
12.08.2010 a single Bench of this Court had held that the benefit of
('
S circular dated 28.08.2000 shall be extended to duly qualified SSUs
(Small Scale Units) unless there are good reasons for not doing so which reasons must be recorded in writing; the price preference of
15% over the quoted price which is a part of the circular dated
28.08.2000 was also to be implemented. The grievance of the petitioner is that this circular has not been implemented by them in true letter and spirit.
Reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that tender submitted by the petitioner is yet under consideration; it is categorically stated in para 10 that the tender of the petitioner has not been rejected; it is yet pending; question of contempt does not arise.
This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the tender of the petitioner is yet pending before the respondents authority;
2011:DHC:8462 contempt petition is not maintainable.
Dismissed:
AUGUST 11, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:8462
A-13
% 11.08.2011
Present: Mr.Sushil Kumar Pandey, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jagjit Singh, Advocate for the respondent.
+CONT. CAS (C) No. 278/2011
*
The petitioner is aggrieved by the conduct of the respondent; his contention is that the directions contained in the order dated
12.08.2010 have not been complied with; vide order dated
12.08.2010 a single Bench of this Court had held that the benefit of
('
S circular dated 28.08.2000 shall be extended to duly qualified SSUs
(Small Scale Units) unless there are good reasons for not doing so which reasons must be recorded in writing; the price preference of
15% over the quoted price which is a part of the circular dated
28.08.2000 was also to be implemented. The grievance of the petitioner is that this circular has not been implemented by them in true letter and spirit.
Reply has been filed wherein it has been stated that tender submitted by the petitioner is yet under consideration; it is categorically stated in para 10 that the tender of the petitioner has not been rejected; it is yet pending; question of contempt does not arise.
This factual position has not been disputed by learned counsel for the petitioner. It is an admitted fact that the tender of the petitioner is yet pending before the respondents authority;
2011:DHC:8462 contempt petition is not maintainable.
Dismissed:
AUGUST 11, 2011 a
INDERMEET KAUR, J.
2011:DHC:8462
JUDGMENT