IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH. C.W.P. No. 20115 of 2008 DATE OF DECISION : 09.12.2008 M/s Modern Agro Chemical Industries Limited, Jalandhar City .... PETITIONER Versus State of Punjab and others ..... RESPONDENTS CORAM :- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SATISH KUMAR MITTAL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASWANT SINGH Present: Mr. Ashwani Prashar, Advocate, for the petitioner. Mr. M.S. Sindhu, Addl. A.G., Punjab, for respondents No.1 to 3. Ms. Sushma Chopra, Advocate, for respondent No.4. * * * SATISH KUMAR MITTAL , J. ( Oral ) The petitioner, against whom Award dated 16.5.2001 (Annexure P-3) was passed by the Deputy Registrar, which was also confirmed in appeal by the Joint Registrar vide his order dated 22.4.2002 (Annexure P-4), has filed this petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, feeling aggrieved against the orders dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure P-6) and 1.8.2008 (Annexure P-7). It is the case of the petitioner that during the course of hearing of the revision, filed against the orders dated 16.5.2001 and 22.4.2002, the CWP No. 20115 of 2008 -2- petitioner gave an application that it intends to settle the dispute under One Time Settlement Scheme, therefore, the petitioner may be permitted to withdraw the revision petition with liberty to make an application for settling the dispute under the One Time Settlement Scheme. Counsel for respondent No.4-Bank didi not oppose the said prayer. However, the Special Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab, dismissed the said revision petition as withdrawn without giving any liberty. The petitioner filed an application for modification of the said order, with a prayer that either the petitioner may be given liberty to move an application for settlement of dispute under One Time Settlement Scheme or its revision petition be decided on merits, but the said application was also dismissed by the Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab. Counsel for respondent No.4-Bank states that there is no scheme, under which the dispute can be settled. However, she further states that respondent No.4-Bank has no objection if the revision petition, filed by the petitioner is decided on merits. Counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer that the impugned order dated 1.8.2008, passed by the Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab, be set aside and he be directed to decide the revision petition, filed by the petitioner against the orders dated 16.5.2001 and 22.4.2002, on merits. Counsel for respondents have no objection, if this prayer of the petitioner is accepted. Consequently, this petition is allowed; the impugned orders dated 8.1.2008 (Annexure P-6) and 1.8.2008 (Annexure P-7) are set aside CWP No. 20115 of 2008 -3- and the Secretary, Cooperation (A), Punjab, is directed to decide the revision petition, filed by the petitioner, on merits, expeditiously, preferably within a period of three months from today. ( SATISH KUMAR MITTAL ) JUDGE December 09, 2008 ( JASWANT SINGH ) ndj JUDGE