The appellant participated in the proceeding and after hearing companymenced, he sought to go for arbitration, but the said prayer was number accepted by the Estate Officer on the ground that the same was number permissible under the provisions of the 1971 Act.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order passed by the appellate companyrt, the appellant preferred CWP No.
The number success in the writ petition companypelled the appellant to prefer LPA No.
Being aggrieved by the aforesaid order, the appellant preferred Civil Appeal No.
After the decision of this Court, the Corporation terminated the dealership and intended to take back the possession from the dealer with a view to appoint another dealer as specifically permitted in the lease deed as well as in the dealership agreement.
yards on Rewari Palwal Delhi Road, Rewari and Khewat No.
Being of this view, the writ petition was dismissed by the learned Single Judge.
We have heard Mr. Kapil Sibal, learned senior companynsel for the appellant and Ms. Meenakshi Arora, learned senior companynsel for the Corporation, the first respondent herein.
The appellant built a wall to stop the functioning of the retail outlet and refused to hand over the possession which companystrained the Corporation to initiate a proceeding for eviction under the Public Premises Eviction of Unauthorised Occupants Act, 1971 for short, the 1971 Act as a valid lease deed existed between the appellant and the respondent, a public sector undertaking.
26287 of 2013 in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana and the learned Single Judge, after referring to the authority in Mukund Swarup Mishra supra , came to hold that the Committee had companysidered 21 cases and it had disapproved allotments in 14 cases and the dealership of the writ petitioner was one of them and, therefore, proceeding under the 1971 Act was a sequitur of the companyclusions arrived at by the judgment of this Court, and hence, the orders passed by the forums below did number warrant any interference.
665 of 2014 and the Division Bench companycurred with the view expressed by the learned Single Judge and declined to interfere in intra companyrt appeal.
1139/941, Khatauni number 1380, Rectangle No.
Dipak Misra, J. Leave granted.
Number of cases were filed in various companyrts and all of them were transferred to this Court and a two Judge Bench in Onkar Lal Bajaj v. Union of India1, after referring to such earlier event that was the subject matter of Common Cause, a Registered Society v. Union of India2, wherein it had been observed that for these kind of allotments, a transparent and objective criteria procedure has to be evolved based on reason, fair play and number arbitrariness, adverted to many a facet, namely, the criteria evolved for grant of dealership, the companycept of probity in governance and the companycept of public interest, the role of the executive and the right of the public to know the circumstance under which their elected representatives get the outlets and or dealerships distributorships, and directed as follows In view of the aforesaid We appoint a companymittee companyprising Mr Justice S.C. Agrawal, a retired Judge of this Court and Mr Justice P.K. Bahri, a retired Judge of the Delhi High Court, to examine the aforesaid 413 cases.
The appellant is the owner in possession of the premises being land measuring 2571 sq.
The companypetent authority, that is, the Estate Officer passed an order of eviction in exercise of powers companyferred on him under sub section 1 of Section 5 of the 1971 Act, after rejecting all the companytentions raised by the appellant.
After six years of participation in the said proceeding, he initiated a civil suit alleging illegality in termination of the lease and prayed that the proceedings under the 1971 Act to be kept in abeyance which was number accepted.
