CWP-20240-2026 [1] 128 IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP-20240-2026 Date of decision: 08.07.2026 M/s Roshan Lal Kapil Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VIKAS BAHL HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUBHAS MEHLA Present: Mr. S.S. Khurana, Advocate for the petitioner. Mr. Deepak Bhardwaj, Addl. A.G. Haryana. **** VIKAS BAHL, J. (ORAL) 1. This is a Civil Writ Petition filed under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India for issuance of directions to respondent No.1 to list the revision petition preferred by the petitioner i.e., Revision Petition No.046 of 2020 dated 03.09.2020 titled as M/s Roshanlal Kapil Kumar V/s CA/HSAM Board (Annexure P-5) (which is pending adjudication before respondent No.1 since 01.10.2020) and decide the same, in accordance with law, after giving an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that against the order dated 21.07.2020 passed by the Zonal Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board, Karnal (Exercising the powers of Chief Administrator as Appellate Authority), the petitioner had filed a revision petition dated 03.09.2020 under Section 40 of the Haryana Agricultural Produce Markets Act, 1961. It is further submitted that a perusal of the zimni orders (Annexure P-7) would show that no effective hearing has taken place in PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP-20240-2026 [2] the same and the case is now fixed for arguments and the respondents have duly been represented which fact is apparent from a perusal of zimni order dated 28.10.2021. It is further submitted that the revision petition was last listed on 16.08.2024 and thereafter, adjourned to 07.11.2024 and thereafter, has not been listed whereas similar matters have already been decided in favour of the persons who were similarly placed as the petitioner. It is further submitted that the petitioner would be satisfied at this stage, in case respondent No.1 is directed to decide the revision petition dated 03.09.2020 expeditiously in a time bound manner. 3. Learned counsel for the respondents-State, on advance notice, appears and has fairly submitted that every endeavour would be made by respondent No.1 to decide the said revision petition, if any pending, as expeditiously as possible within a period of three months from today. 4. Keeping in view the abovesaid facts and circumstances and limited prayer made on behalf of the petitioner, the present writ petition is disposed of with direction to respondent No.1 to decide the revision petition dated 03.09.2020 (Annexure P-5) filed by the petitioner if still pending, as expeditiously as possible preferably within a period of three months from today. 5. It is made clear that this Court has not expressed any opinion on the merits of the case. (VIKAS BAHL) JUDGE (SUBHAS MEHLA) JUDGE 08.07.2026 Pawan Whether speaking/reasoned:- Yes/No Whether reportable:- Yes/No PAWAN KUMAR 2026.07.09 14:17 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document