IN THE HIGH COURT OF HIMACHAL PRADESH, SHIMLA. CWP No. 2231 of 2009. Decided on: 11.3.2010. Ramesh Chand Patyal ….. Petitioner. Versus HP Ex-servicemen Corporation & ors. …… Respondents. Coram The Hon’ble Mr. Justice Kurian Joseph, Chief Justice The Hon’ble Mr. Justice R.B. Misra, Judge. For the petitioner : Mr. Ajay Sharma, Advocate. For the Respondents : M/S Bhuvnesh Sharma and Ramakant Sharma, Advocates. --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Justice Kurian Joseph, C.J. (Oral) The Writ Petition is filed with the following prayer: “ a) Directing the respondents by issuing a writ of certiorari and impugned in-action on the part of the respondents in not attaching the vehicle of the petitioner bearing No. HP-67-1929 for business with respondent Corporation to lift the cement from Barmana contrary to all norms of justice may kindly be quashed and set aside with further directions by issuing a writ of mandamus thereby directing the respondents to attach the vehicle of the petitioner above-stated immediately and forthwith and provide him business of lifting the cement from cement factory Barmana;” Learned counsel for the first respondent submits that the vehicle referred to above has already been attached. But it has to be seen that the petitioner is an ex-serviceman and his father is also an ex-serviceman. The vehicle referred to above is a vehicle replaced by the petitioner for the old vehicle of the father. That benefit is wholly on account of the ex-serviceman status of the father and the benefit of that arrangement is to the father only. Learned counsel for the first respondent -2- submits that the petitioner has already one vehicle in his name and that is attached, but the contention of the petitioner is that, that is only substitution of his father’s old vehicle. As far as the petitioner is concerned, he too being an ex-serviceman, it is submitted that he is entitled for one vehicle to be attached to the first respondent- Society. There are several other contentions taken with regard to the conduct of affairs with the first respondent. We do not think it necessary to go into this aspect, since essentially what the petitioner wants that his status as ex-serviceman should be recognized by the first respondent by getting his vehicle attached to the Society for his benefit. The petitioner may make an application to the first respondent-Society making his distinct claim as an ex-serviceman pointing out the number of the vehicle which the petitioner wants to get attached for him within a period of two weeks from today. If such an application is filed, the first respondent shall consider the application with a notice to the petitioner and his father taking note also of the fact that distinct from the status of his father as an ex-serviceman, the petitioner also is an ex-serviceman and appropriate orders in that regard shall be passed within another two weeks. Needless to say that the application filed by the petitioner, as above, shall not be rejected on the only ground that he had replaced the father’s vehicle by another vehicle in his name, since the benefit of it is to the father. The petition stands disposed of, so also the pending application(s), if any. (Justice Kurian Joseph), Chief Justice March 11, 2010 ( Justice R.B.Misra ), (ks/tr) Judge.