CWP No. 19763 of 2010 1 In the High Court for the States of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh … CWP No. 19763 of 2010 Date of decision: January 20,2011 Janta Meat Shop ..Petitioner. Versus State of Punjab and others ..Respondents Coram: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR Present: Mr. A.S.Dhaliwal, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Sartaj Singh Gill,DAG,Punjab for respondent Nos.1,4 and 5. Mr. Parveen Goyal, Advocate for respondent Nos.2 and 3 None for respondent Nos.6 to 16. ... M ehinder S ingh S ullar , J.(Oral) The petitioner Janta Meat Shop has instituted the instant writ petition in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to renew its licence to run Janta Meat Shop and to withdraw the notice dated 20.8.2010 issued under Section 197 of the Punjab Municipal Act, 1911.The respondents contested the claim of the petitioner and filed the written statement. 2. What is not disputed here is that an identical matter was involved in CWP No.14038 of 2010 which came to be disposed of by a Coordinate Bench of this court (Surya Kant, J) vide order dated 9.8.2010 in the following manner:- “'The petitioners are shop keepers in the furniture market at Moga. Their grievance is that despite refusal of licence by the Municipal authorities, a Meat market in the name of “Shilpy Meat Shop is being opened in the Furniture Market, Moga. The petitioners are said to have represented the Municipal authorities and District Administration (Annexure CWP No. 19763 of 2010 2 P-7) but no action is alleged to have been taken by them so far. Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners and considering the nature of relief sought by them, I deem it appropriate to dispose of the writ petition with a direction to the Deputy Commissioner, Moga to consider and dispose of the representation dated 3.3.2010 (Annexure P-6) said to have been submitted by the petitioners and other shop keepers by passing a speaking order as early as possible but not later than one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order. The Deputy Commissioner, Moga shall also take remedial steps, if any, that may be required in the matter.” 3. Another CWP No.16592 of 2010 was also disposed of in the same terms vide order dated 15.9.2010 as under:- “(1) Having heard learned counsel for the petitioners, I am of the considered view that no interference by this Court is called for at this stage for the reason that vide order dated 9.8.2010 passed in CWP No. 14038 of 2010, the Deputy Commissioner, Moga has been directed to take appropriate decision including for taking remedial steps that may be required in law. (2) Suffice it to say that this order does not preclude the petitioners to represent before the Deputy Commissioner, Moga to give their view points which shall also be taken into consideration but the said authority while arriving at any definite conclusion. (3) With afore-stated liberty, the writ petition stands disposed of. (4) Dasti.” 4. Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the instant writ CWP No. 19763 of 2010 3 petition deserves to and be disposed of in the same terms. 5. Therefore, the instant writ petition is disposed of with the directions to Deputy Commissioner, Moga (respondent No.4) to consider and dispose of the representation of the petitioner to be filed as well in the same terms. January 20,2011 (Mehinder Singh Sullar) nk JUDGE