Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 1991 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH (1) Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 1991 M/s Chandu Lal Matu Ram and others ......Petitioners Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents (2) Civil Writ Petition No.15089 of 1991 M/s C.L.Woolen ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents (3) Civil Writ Petition No.15091 of 1991 M/s Indian Wool Trading Company ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents (4) Civil Writ Petition No.15092 of 1991 M/s Shivam Textiles Industries ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents (5) Civil Writ Petition No.15093 of 1991 M/s Navneet and Company ......Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents (6) Civil Writ Petition No.15096 of 1991 M/s Singla Brothers ......Petitioner Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 1991 2 Versus The State of Haryana and others .....Respondents Date of Decision:30.03.2011 CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR. Present: Nemo for the petitioner(s). Ms.Kirti Singh, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana, for respondent No.1. Mr.Ravi Kapoor, Advocate, for respondent Nos.2 and 3. **** M EHINDER S INGH S ULLAR , J.(oral) The epitome of the facts, which needs a necessary mention for the limited purpose of deciding the core controversy, involved in the instant cases and emanating from the record, is that the State of Haryana and its Agricultural Marketing Board(respondents) formulated a scheme in the year 1986-87, for the establishment of a New Grain Market at Panipat, for shifting the entire business from old market to the newly established market. 2. After completion all the codal formalities, the new market yard was notified and the allotments of the plots were given and, accordingly, possessions were delivered to the allottees in the year, 1990. The respondents were stated to have formed some policies of allotment to adjust the old license holders in the old market. According to the petitioners, their claim of allotment of plots was not considered by the respondents. 3. The petitioner(s) have preferred the instant writ petitions claiming the allotment of the plots in the newly established Grain Market at Panipat, on the basis of policies(Annexures P-1 and P-2) framed by the Government in this regard. 4. The writ petitions were filed on 17.09.1991/30.09.1991 and were admitted on 06.05.1992. The bare perusal of the record would reveal that none Civil Writ Petition No.14415 of 1991 3 had appeared on behalf of the petitioner(s) on 15.02.2011, when the cases were listed for regular hearing. As, it was pointed out that the original counsel (Mr.O.P.Goyal, Julanawala), who appeared on behalf of the petitioner(s), had expired, therefore, the Registry was directed to issue actual date notices to the petitioner(s), returnable for 29.03.2011, but nobody is appearing on their behalf to prosecute the present petitions. 5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing on behalf of respondent Nos.2 and 3 stated that the petitioner(s)-Firms have already ceased to exist. He has submitted/produced a Certificate/Letter dated 21.03.2011 bearing Reference No.295, issued by the Market Committee, Panipat, wherein it was reported that as the petitioner(s)-Firms have ceased to exist, therefore, their licenses were cancelled. Meaning thereby, at present the petitioner(s)-Firms are not in existence. 6. Not only that, learned counsel for respondent Nos.2 and 3 has also submitted that a similar writ petition bearing No.12410 of 1991 has already been dismissed by a Coordinate Bench of this Court(A.N.Jindal, J.) on 09.02.2011, on the same ground of non-appearance of any person on behalf of the petitioner(s). 7. In this manner and on the strength of letter(Annexure “RX”), learned counsel for the respondents has submitted that all these writ petitions have become infructuous, which may be dismissed as such. The contention of the learned counsel for the respondents has considerable force. 8. From the sequence of events narrated here-in-above, I am satisfied that since the licenses of the petitioner(s)-Firms have already been cancelled and, they are no more in existence, therefore, the writ petitions are hereby dismissed, as having become infructuous. March 30, 2011 (MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR) seema JUDGE