Himachal Pradesh High Court
CWP/1747/2010 on 29 December 2012
IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH,
SHIMLA.
CWP No. 1747 of 2010-B alongwith
CWP Nos. 1748 of 2010-B & 1751 of
2010-C
Decided on: 29.12.2011
Citations and Judicial Treatment
Cited by
0
Decisions in the index citing it
Cites
0
Decisions referred to
In this index
0
Of the decisions it cites
Overruled / Questioned
0
No negative treatment found
Loading the citing and cited decisions…
This judgment in the centre: on the left the decisions it cites, on the right the decisions citing it. Colour is the treatment; choose a decision to open it.
1. CWP No. 1747 of 2010-B. Krishan Chand Chandel, S/o late Shri Jai Kishan, R/o Kumar Building, Engine Ghar Sanjauly, Shimla-6 and also Shop No. 10, New Block-B, Market Complex, Dhalli, Shimla-12. ....Petitioner Versus
1.
2.
2. CWP No. 1748 of 2010-B Meera Verma, W/o Satish Verma, R/o Village & Post Office Dhanawali, Tehsil Kumarsain, District Shimla, H.P. and also Shop No. 9, New Block-B, Market Complex Dhalli, Shimla-12. ....Petitioner Versus
1.
2.
3. CWP No. 1751 of 2010-B Janardhan Makhaik, S/o Sh. Shyam Sukh, R/o Village Shathla, Post Office Virgarh, Tehsil Kumarsain, District
Shimla and also Shimla Fruit Agency, Shop No. 6, MRF Building Market Complex Dhalli, Shimla-12. ....Petitioner Versus
1.
2. Civil Writ Petitions under Article 226 of the Constitution of India.
Coram
The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice. The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Dev Darshan Sud, Judge. For the petitioner(s) : Mr. Y.P. Sood, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. R.K. Bawa, Advocate General with Mr. Ankush Dass Sood, Additional Advocate General, Mr. J.K. Verma, Deputy Advocate General and Mr. Ramesh
Thakur,
Assistant Advocate General for respondent No. 1. Mr. S.C. Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No. 2. Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The petitioners approached this Court with certain grievances regarding non-renewal of their licences. Apparently, the licences were not renewed, since the allotment had been cancelled. The petitioners have pursued the remedy under the
Agreement for Arbitration. We are informed that the District Court has granted an interim order staying dispossession of the petitioners. In such circumstances, the petitioners pray for an opportunity to approach either the District Court or the Arbitrator or the second respondent itself for appropriate further relief regarding the licence(s). Therefore, leaving all options to the petitioners and also leaving all the contentions open, these writ petitions are disposed of with liberty to the petitioners to seek appropriate relief either before the District Court or the Arbitrator or the second respondent.
2. Pending applications, if any, also stand disposed of. (Justice Kurian Joseph),
Chief Justice.
December 29, 2011 (Justice Dev Dasrshan Sud), ( ms/hl) Judge.