L.P.A. No.198 of 2007 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Date of Decision : 27.01.2009 Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board & another .....Appellants versus M/s Hazari Lal Kishan Lal and others .....Respondents CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE UMA NATH SINGH. HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.N.JINDAL. Present : Mr.Raman B. Garg, Advocate for appellants. Mr.Sanjeev Gupta, Advocate for respondent Nos.1 to 11. Mr.R.K.Gupta, Advocate, for respondent Nos.13, 15, 24, 26, 36 & 37. -.- UMA NATH SINGH, J. This appeal is time barred having been filed with 250 days' delay wherefor the appellant has not given any plausible explanation. Besides, Civil Writ Petition No.3980 of 1988, filed in this Court, was disposed of by a learned Single Judge vide the order dated 29.11.2006. Relevant portion of said order is reproduced as under:- “.....At this stage, learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has suffered a statement on the instructions of Shri Yash Pal Singh, Accountant, Marketing Board, who is present in the Court, that except the aforestated petitioners seriatim-wise, the remaining petitioners in the writ petition shall be accommodated later L.P.A. No.198 of 2007 2 on as per the policy to be formulated by the competent authority and till they are accommodated/ adjusted in the New Anaj Mandi at Assandh and shall not be disturbed in any manner. In view of this, Shri R.S.Mittal, Senior Counsel appearing for the petitioners, does not press this petition and he has prayed that the same be dismissed as withdrawn. I order accordingly. However, it is made clear that in case the petitioners are not accommodated/adjusted in the New Anaj Mandi at Assandh after the formulation of the new policy, then in that case, they will be at liberty to knock the door of this Court, if required.” Thereafter, a review petition was filed which was also disposed of by the learned Single Judge vide order dated 30.3.2007. Relevant portions of the order on reproduction read as:- “..........Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2 has suffered statement today on the instructions of Secretary, Marketing Board Shri Shubh Ram Vashishth, who is present in the Court, that except for the aforesaid petitioners, who have now been correctly mentioned, the remaining petitioners, except for the dead firms in the writ petition, shall be accommodated later on as per the policy, which had already been formulated on 1.6.1987. In view of the statement made by learned counsel for respondent No.2, all other petitioners, the details of whom have been furnished in para No.5 of the review L.P.A. No.198 of 2007 3 petition, viz, petitioners Nos.1, 3, 9, 13, 16, 17, 25, 26, 31, 33 and 36 shall be accommodated in accordance with the policy existing at that time and till they are accommodated/adjusted in the new Anaj Mandi, Assandh, they shall continue with the business in the old Mandi at Assandh and shall not be disturbed in any manner. However, it is made clear that in case the eligible petitioners are not accommodated/adjusted in the new Anaj Mandi at Assandh after the formulation of the new policy, then in that eventuality, they will be at liberty to knock the door of this Court, if required.” Both these orders are consistent with each other. However, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board appears to be aggrieved by the order dated 30.3.2007 to the extent whereby it has been directed that the respondents would be accommodated as per the policy formulated on 1.6.1987 and, thus, has prayed for deletion of the same. Learned counsel for appellants submitted that this portion of the order on the basis of statement made by learned counsel for the Board has been erroneously recorded as there is no such new policy of 1987. On a careful consideration of the submissions, we do not find any ground to allow this appeal. Thus, we dismiss the same on both grounds namely delay as well as merits. However, in the facts and circumstances of the case as aforesaid, we make it clear that the aforesaid portion of the order recorded on the basis of the statement of learned counsel for the Board as incorporated in the order with reference to 1987 L.P.A. No.198 of 2007 4 policy shall have no bearing/effect on the operation of the remaining part of the order dated 30.3.2007. (UMA NATH SINGH) JUDGE 27-01-2009 (A.N.JINDAL) Mohinder JUDGE