Inderjit Singh and Others vs State of Punjab and Others

M.M. Kumar, J.—This petition filed under Article 226 of the Constitution prays for issuance directions to the respondents to make the payment of interest at the rate of Rs. 15% per annum on the amount paid to the petitioners for the sugarcane sold by them to respondent No. 5 as per Clause 3 (3-A) of the Sugarcane Control Order, 1996 framed under the Essential Commodities Act, 1955. For this, the petitioners have served a legal notice dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P.12) upon respondent No. 6, but till date the same has not been decided and is pending consideration.

We have heard the learned Counsel for the petitioner at some length and perused the paper book.

Before disposing of this writ petition we would refer to the views of Hon''ble the Supreme Court in the case of Salem Advocate Bar Association, Tamil Nadu Vs. Union of India (UOI), . In paras 38 and 39 of the judgment it has been required that whenever notice u/s 80 C.P.C. or under any similar provision is sent then it is mandatory on the part of State or Central Government or other authorities to send reply to such notice. It is well settled that before seeking a direction or a writ of mandamus, justice demand notice is required to be served on the respondents as has been done in the present case. The petitioners had served a legal notice dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P.12) upon respondent No. 6, to which no reply is stated to have been received. It has also been observed by Hon''ble the Supreme Court that in cases where such like notice has not been replied then cost is required to be imposed. Therefore, without going into the merits of the case, we dispose of the writ petition, at this stage, with a direction to the respondents to take a decision on the legal notice dated 30.01.2008 (Annexure P.12) by passing a speaking order within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.

The petition stands disposed of in the above terms.