Sikkim High Court
WP(C)/42/2020 of Lupin Limited Vs Union of India and Ors. on 29 November 2021
OF SIKKIM Court No.3 Record of Proceedings Page 1 of 2 W.P. (C) No. 42 of 2020 LUPIN LIMITED .... PETITIONER VERSUS UNION OF INDIA & ORS. .... RESPONDENTS Date: 29.11.2021 CORAM HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J. For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate For
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.
Conclusion
W.P. (C) No. 42 of 2020
LUPIN LIMITED UNION OF INDIA & ORS.
.... PETITIONERVERSUS
.... RESPONDENTS
Date: 29.11.2021
CORAM
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE BHASKAR RAJ PRADHAN, J.
For Petitioner : Mr. Bharat Raichandani, Advocate For Respondents R-1 : Ms Sangita Pradhan, Assistant Solicitor General of India R-2 & R-3 : Mr. Sudesh Joshi, Additional Advocate General Mr. Thinlay Dorjee, Govt. Advocate Mr. Sujan Sunwar, Asst. Government Advocate .......
Heard Mr. Bharat Raichandani, learned counsel for the petitioner. Also heard Ms Sangita Pradhan, learned Assistant Solicitor General of India and Mr. Sudesh Joshi, learned Additional Advocate General of Sikkim for the State respondents.
Considered the pleadings in the writ petition, counter-affidavits and rejoinders. It seems that the petitioner had made two communications dated 05.02.2018 (Annexure P-2) addressed to the General Manager (E/N), District Industries Centre, Government of Sikkim and an undated letter (Annexure P-1) addressed to the Director, Commerce & Industries Department, Government of Sikkim. Both these communications have the endorsements of having been received by the concerned Office. According to Mr. Raichandani, although these communications were received by the State-respondents, there was no response from them. It was precisely for this reason that the petitioner had to approach this court by filing the present writ petition seeking the reliefs thereunder.
This court is of the considered view that at this juncture it would be sufficient if a direction is issued to the state respondents to consider the two communications (supra) within a period of three months from today.
The petitioner may also be given a personal hearing before a decision is taken in this regard and the decision shall, thereafter, be communicated to the petitioner in writing.
The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.
Judge
Index: yes/NoInternet: yes/Nobp/sdl