M/S Dd Sales Corporation And ... vs State Of Haryana And Others
2023 Latest Caselaw 1451 P&H

CWP- 28213 of 2022        1

123    IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                    CHANDIGARH
                                CWP- 28213 of 2022
                                Date of decision : 23.01.2023
M/s DD Sales Corp and another

                                                                 ....Petitioners
                         Versus
State of Haryana and others
                                                                 ....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
        HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKRAM AGGARWAL

Present:     Mr. Vikram Singh, Advocate
             for the petitioners.

             Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, DAG, Haryana.

             Mr. Anand Chhibbar, Sr. Advocate and
             Mr. Amit Jhanji, Sr. Advocate with
             Mr. Ateev Raj Sandhu, Advocate,
             Ms. Eliza Gupta, Advocate and
             Ms. Khyati Avnish, Advocate
             for the respondents/Caveators.

            *****
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)

The primary grievance of the petitioners, as has been pointed out by

the learned counsel for the petitioners and has been argued by him, is that with the

Letters Patent Appeal No.2129 of 2016 having been allowed by the Division

Bench of this Court on 08.04.2021 and the remand of the case back to the learned

Single Judge for decision afresh resulted in restoration of not only the writ petition

to its original number but restoring the interim order as has been passed by the

learned Single Judge wherein status quo with regard to possession was ordered to

be maintained during the pendency of the writ petition.

The writ petition admittedly is still pending and CM-12038-CWP-

2021 titled as M/s Chandra Auto Engineers Pvt Ltd. Vs. State of Haryana and

others was preferred by the petitioner which was disposed of by the learned Single

Judge vide order dated 13.09.2021 which reads as follows:-

1 of 3

CWP- 28213 of 2022 2

"This application has been filed for listing of the case after restoration of the writ petition to its original number and for directions that interim order dated 01.07.2014 stands revived.

Vide judgment dated 09.05.2016, this writ petition and connected cases were decided. Letter Patent Appeal filed by the private respondent has succeeded. Order of the learned Single Judge has been set aside and the matter has been remanded for a fresh decision.

In view of the above, the writ petition already stands restored to its original number. As a corollary, all legal consequences on account of restoration of the writ petition shall flow. There is no need for passing a direction for restoration.

So far as listing of the matter is concerned, considering the fact that limited hearing is in progress, no orders can be passed. The applicant may apply for the same after physical hearing is restored completely.

The application has no merit and is dismissed."

A perusal of this order leaves no manner of doubt that learned Single

Judge has acknowledged the fact that the interim order with regard to status quo

qua possession to be maintained by the parties subjudice.

Learned counsel for the petitioners has sought to project as if while

granting renewal of the licence the order passed by the learned Single Judge

relating to status quo of possession to be maintained having been violated. This

assertion of the counsel for the petitioners is misplaced as there is nothing which

has been brought on record which would indicate that the possession has changed

hands at the level of the respondents to any of the parties by them. What has only

been granted is renewal of the licence, which is by and large, a paper transaction.

As far as the physical possession is concerned, the same remains

intact with the parties as it existed at the time of passing of the order of status quo

by this Court. This being the position we are of the view that no interference in the

2 of 3

CWP- 28213 of 2022 3

writ petition is called for except for observing that in case the petitioners are so

advised they may move an appropriate application before the learned Single Judge

for listing of the writ petition and disposal thereof.

Learned Senior counsel for the respondents have very fairly stated

that they have no objection to the listing and hearing of the main case before the

learned Single Judge.

The writ petition stands disposed of accordingly.

                                                (AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH)
                                                        JUDGE


23.01.2023                                        ( VIKRAM AGGARWAL )
R.sharma                                                 JUDGE


                    Whether speaking/reasoned :           Yes/No.
                    Whether reportable        :          Yes/No.




                                       3 of 3