Emaar Mgf Land Limited Through Its Authorized Representative Mr. Nikhil Srivastava vs. The State Of Haryana State Of Haryana Through Its Financial Commissioner And Principal Secretary

ITEM NO.5 Court 6 (Video Conferencing) SECTION X

S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS

Writ Petition(s)(Civil) No.1057/2020

M/S. FERROUS TOWNSHIP PVT. LTD. & ANR. Petitioner(s)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Respondent(s)

(ONLY I.A. NO. 112320/2021 IN W.P.(C) NO. 1097/2020 TO BE LISTED )

WITH

W.P.(C) No. 1097/2020 (X)

(IA No. 112320/2021 - APPROPRIATE ORDERS/DIRECTIONS)

Date : 04-10-2021 This petition was called on for hearing today.

• CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SANJAY KISHAN KAUL HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRESH
• For Parties Mr. Preetesh Kapur, Sr. Adv. Mr. Shaunak Kashyap, Adv.

M/S. Mitter & Mitter Co., AOR

Mr. Abhimanyu Bhandari, Adv. Ms. Rooh-e-hina Dua, AOR Ms. Ananya Sikri, Adv.

For Respondent(s) Mr. Alok Sangwan, Adv./Sr.AAG Govt. of Haryana Dr. Monika Gusain, AOR Mr. Sumit Kumar Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anurag Kulharia, Adv.

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following O R D E R

Learned counsel for the petitioner(s) has drawn our attention to the Order passed on 16.3.2021 directing that the matter would be considered for interim relief. The matter was listed on a non-miscellaneous Tuesday but because Digitally signed by RASHI GUPTA Date: 2021.10.04 17:31:15 IST Reason: Signature Not Verified

of the second wave of Covid-19, it could not be taken up.

He further submits that a fresh application I.A. No.112320/2021 is necessitated on account of certain subsequent events as according to him one part of the interim relief may not survive if the respondent(s) appropriately considers his application dated 31.5.2021 based on subsequent legislative relief.

On our query learned counsel for the respondent(s) submits that there was no need for the petitioner(s) to approach this Court in that behalf and in any case he assures this Court that the decision will be taken on the same within a maximum period of two weeks.

We may only point out that the necessity of moving such an application arises, resulting in unnecessary wastage of Court's time, because State Authorities do not respond to representations within a reasonable period of time i.e. even after four months there has been no response to the representation of the petitioner(s). This is something we do not appreciate as there has to be responsiveness of the State Authorities to citizens/ companies so that they know the result of their representations.

Be that as it may, the respondent-State will now take a decision within two weeks on the same and this application will also be listed on the next date of hearing.

List for consideration on a non-miscellaneous Tuesday in January, 2022.

(RASHMI DHYANI) (POONAM VAID) COURT MASTER COURT MASTER

2