IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 1. L.P.A No. 1687 of 2011 (O&M) Date of Decision: 13.9.2011. S.S. Jain Sabha --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents 2. L.P.A No. 1688 of 2011 (O&M) Rajbir Singh Chikkara --Petitioner Versus State of Haryana & others --Respondents CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE PERMOD KOHLI. HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI. Present:- Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for the appellants. *** PERMOD KOHLI.J (ORAL) C.M. Nos.4561 & 4563 of 2011 Applications are allowed. Delay of 66 days in filing the appeals is condoned. L.P.A Nos. 1687 & 1688 of 2011 (O&M) In view of the common legal and factual background, both these appeals are being disposed of by this common order. These L.P.As arise out of a common order dated 6.6.2011 passed in CWP Nos. 10896 & 10897 of 2011. Appellants were granted license for running the medical shops in the premises of P.G.I., Rohtak, for a period of 3 years commencing from 25.3.2004. The appellants, however, continued to hold on the possession of the shops by resorting to litigation and may be under the interim orders of the court. It seems that proceedings under the Haryana Public Premises & Land Eviction Act were initiated against the appellants. The appellants, L.P.A No. 1687 of 2011(O&M) -2- accordingly, filed above mentioned writ petitions before this court. The main contention raised before the Writ Court was that under the terms and conditions of the license granted in favour of the appellants, they were required to provide quality and economical medicines to the patients and would not charge more than reasonable profit ranging between 10 to 15%. On the basis of these conditions contained in clauses 6 and 8 of the license agreement, it was sought to be projected that by auctioning the shops the authorities may earn much higher premium and rentals and in that eventuality the licensees who may be given the shops for selling medicines will definitely charge much higher profit and rates from the patients, which is contrary even to the policy of the State Govt. contained in Annexure P-1, annexed with the writ petitions. It appears that the Writ Court on consideration of the various aspects and some orders having been passed in Public Interest Litigation, wherein opening of Jan Aushadhi Shop at P.G.I, Rohtak was envisaged, issued certain directions to the authorities for opening of such shops and at the same time did not agree with the contentions raised by the appellants. During the course of hearing, the counsel appearing for the appellants sought time for vacation of the premises. On this request being made, the counsel agreed to withdraw the writ petitions and the writ petitioners were granted three months time to vacate the premises. The writ petitions were resultantly dismissed as withdrawn. Learned counsel for the appellants has vehemently contended that both the appellants were abroad when the writ petitions came to be dismissed. It is further stated that the counsel had no instructions to withdraw the writ petitions. L.P.A No. 1687 of 2011 (O&M) -3- We are afraid, such an argument can be accepted. A counsel appearing in the case has always instructions to appear in the case and even withdraw the same. In any case, we do not want to go into this aspect in the present appeals. Even looking to the merit of the controversy, it is admitted case of the appellants that they are mere licensees of the premises which is located in P.G.I., Rohtak. Their license was for a period of 3 years commencing from 25.3.2004. The period of license expired long back but somehow the appellants managed to hold on to the possession by resorting to litigation. It is settled law that license does not create any right or interest in the property as it is permission of user simpliciter. On that count also the contentions of the appellants cannot be accepted. In so far as the question of selling medicines on economical rates is concerned, it is a known fact that all medicines are to be sold on prescribed M.R.P and no person can charge any price more than the M.R.P indicated on the medicine. Therefore, the contention that they were selling medicines at economical prices has no basis. We do not find any merit to interfere in the impugned order. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellants has sought some time to vacate the premises as large stocks of medicines are allegedly stored in the shops. Even the Writ Court had granted three months time, however, keeping in view the interest of justice, we grant time to the appellants to remove all their articles and belongings and completely vacate the premises by 13.10.2011 subject to filing an undertaking by the appellants before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court to vacate the premises on or before L.P.A No. 1687 of 2011(O&M) -4- 13.10.2011, failing which the appellants shall be liable for the contempt of the court and they will also be liable to pay Rs.50,000/- per day for overstay and this order shall be executed as the decree of the court. Appeals disposed of. A copy of this order be placed on the record of each connected file. (PERMOD KOHLI) JUDGE (RITU BAHRI) JUDGE 13.9.2011. lucky