` 129 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA N. S. Steel Traders through its Proprietor State of Punjab CORAM: HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE Present: Mr. Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) 1. This petition is directed P/4) primarily on the ground that the proceedings were not conducted in a fair and transparent manner consisting with the principles of na 2. It transpires that the vehicle in question was intercepted in the State of Punjab and a notice was issued on 03.06.2024. 3. Petition trading activities days was provided for submission of reply yet the demand was raised on the very next date. It is also the petitioner’s case that despite several letters sent, complete copy of the Order 4. Learned counsel for the revenue opposes the writ petition on the ground that the demand raised against the petitioner was promptly met by deposit of the fine on the very next date. It is stated that the driver wa IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-13803 Date of Decision: N. S. Steel Traders through its Proprietor Vs. Punjab and others HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR Mr. Mohit Uppal, Advocate for the petitioner. (through video conferencing) Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab *** ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) This petition is directed against an order dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/4) primarily on the ground that the proceedings were not conducted in a fair and transparent manner consisting with the principles of na It transpires that the vehicle in question was intercepted in the State of Punjab and a notice was issued on 03.06.2024. Petitioner before this Court is a trading activities in the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that though a period of 14 days was provided for submission of reply yet the demand was raised on the very next date. It is also the petitioner’s case that despite several letters sent, complete copy of the Order-in-Original was not furnished to him. Learned counsel for the revenue opposes the writ petition on the ground that the demand raised against the petitioner was promptly met by deposit of on the very next date. It is stated that the driver wa IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH 13803-2026 (O&M) Date of Decision: 22.07.2026 …Petitioner …Respondents HON’BLE THE ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE ROHIT KAPOOR , Advocate for the petitioner. (through video conferencing) Mr. Saurabh Kapoor, Addl. AG, Punjab ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA, A.C.J. (Oral) an order dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/4) primarily on the ground that the proceedings were not conducted in a fair and transparent manner consisting with the principles of natural justice. It transpires that the vehicle in question was intercepted in the State of er before this Court is a proprietorship concern engaging in in the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that though a period of 14 days was provided for submission of reply yet the demand was raised on the very next date. It is also the petitioner’s case that despite several letters sent, complete Original was not furnished to him. Learned counsel for the revenue opposes the writ petition on the ground that the demand raised against the petitioner was promptly met by deposit of on the very next date. It is stated that the driver was the only person an order dated 03.06.2024 (Annexure P/4) primarily on the ground that the proceedings were not conducted in a fair and It transpires that the vehicle in question was intercepted in the State of proprietorship concern engaging in in the State of Rajasthan. It is submitted that though a period of 14 days was provided for submission of reply yet the demand was raised on the very next date. It is also the petitioner’s case that despite several letters sent, complete Learned counsel for the revenue opposes the writ petition on the ground that the demand raised against the petitioner was promptly met by deposit of s the only person RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.27 16:29 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment. CWP-13803-2026 (O&M) [2] accompanying the vehicle and he was provided with requisite details. An objection has also been taken to the maintainability of the writ petition on the ground of laches as the petition itself has been filed in the year 2026 i.e. more than two years after the impugned action. 5. Learned counsel for the petitioner states that only because various letters had not been responded by the respondents that the delay has occasioned in approaching this Court. 6. In the facts of the case, we are not inclined to exercise our extra ordinary writ jurisdiction as we find that amount of fine/penalty was voluntarily paid by the petitioner on the next day i.e. 04.06.2024. Merely sending of letters in the year 2024 would not be sufficient to explain the inordinate delay in approaching the Court inasmuch as if the petitioner felt aggrieved or was denied the requisite documents, it could have taken recourse of law within a reasonable time. It is well settled that someone who sleeps on his rights cannot be permitted to approach the Court with substantial delay. Even otherwise, we find the deposit of fine/penalty has been voluntarily made in the year 2024, therefore, it would not be justified for us to reopen the issue after two years. 7. Consequently, finding no merit in the writ petition, the same is dismissed. 8. All pending misc. application(s), if any, also stand disposed of. (ASHWANI KUMAR MISHRA) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE (ROHIT KAPOOR) 22.07. 2026 JUDGE rajesh 1. Whether speaking/reasoned? : Yes/No 2. Whether reportable? : Yes/No RAJESH KUMAR 2026.07.27 16:29 I attest the accuracy and authenticity of this order/judgment.