Case Title: Harbir and others Vs. State of Haryana and others
Case No.: CWP-4523-2024
Dated on: February 27, 2024
Coram: VIKAS BAHL, J.
Facts:
In this case, the petitioners filed a writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India. They sought judicial intervention to address the cancellation of the registration certificates and permits for their vehicles. The petitioners made three separate representations (Annexures P-6, P-9, and P-10) to the respondents, requesting that their registration certificates and permits be validated. The petitioners’ counsel argued that the grievance should be addressed by the competent authority within a reasonable time frame. They requested that the court direct the respondents to consider these representations and provide appropriate relief if the petitioners’ claims were found to be meritorious. The State counsel agreed that the competent authority would consider the petitioners’ representations and decide on them within eight weeks from the receipt of a certified copy of the court’s order.
Justice Vikas Bahl, presiding over the case, disposed of the petition with directions to the competent authority of respondent No.3 to consider and decide the representations within eight weeks. The decision should be made in accordance with the law, providing appropriate relief if the petitioners’ claims are found to be meritorious, or issuing a reasoned rejection if the claims are not meritorious. The court clarified that it had not commented on the merits of the case and that the competent authority should make an independent decision.
Issues framed by Court:
- Whether the cancellation of the registration certificates and permits of the petitioners’ vehicles by the respondent was valid and justified.
- Whether the respondents, specifically Respondent no. 3, had appropriately considered the petitioners’ representations (Annexures P-6, P-9 and P-10) regarding the cancellation.
- Whether the competent authority would be directed to consider and decide upon the petitioners’ representations within a stipulated time frame, specifically within 8 weeks from the receipt of the court’s order.
- Whether the competent authority should provide appropriate relief to the petitioners if their claims were found to be meritorious.
Legal Provisions:
Article 226 of the Constitution of India: Provides the High Courts with the power to issue writs.
Article 227 of the Constitution of India: It gives every HC power to have superintendence over all courts and tribunals throughout the territories regarding which high court exercises its jurisdiction.
Contention of the Appellants:
The petitioners argued that the cancellation of their vehicle registration certificates and permits by the respondents was unjustified. They had submitted three separate representations (Annexures P-6, P-9, and P-10) to the respondents, specifically to the State authorities, seeking validation of their registration certificates and permits. Further, the petitioners requested the court to direct the competent authority to consider and decide on these representations in a timely manner. They sought appropriate relief if their claims were found to be meritorious. At this stage, the petitioners were contended with the court for directing the competent authority to consider their representations within a specific timeframe.
Contention of the Respondent:
The contention of the respondents, represented by the learned State counsel states that they acknowledged the petitioners’ submissions and agreed that the competent authority of respondent No.3 would consider the petitioners’ representations (Annexures P-6, P-9, and P-10). The State counsel assured the court that these representations would be reviewed and decided within a period of eight weeks from the date of receipt of a certified copy of the court’s order.
Court’s Analysis and Judgement:
The hon’ble court, presided by Justice Vikas Bahl, analyzed the situation by acknowledging the petitioners’ submission that their grievances were outlined in three representations (Annexures P-6, P-9, and P-10). The court noted the State counsel’s agreement that the competent authority of respondent No.3 would consider these representations and decide on them within eight weeks of receiving a certified copy of the court order. Consequently, the court directed the competent authority to review and decide on the petitioners’ representations in accordance with the law within the stipulated timeframe. The court emphasized that it had not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case, leaving the competent authority to independently determine the appropriate course of action, whether it be granting relief or issuing a reasoned rejection. Thus the petition was disposed of with these instructions.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal fall into a category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
Judgement Reviewed By- Shramana Sengupta
