AMARDASS Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard learned counsel for the parties and also examined the record produced by Mr. Negi, learned Assistant Advocate General.

(2.) Facts giving rise to this case are that the petitioner had taken a shop in Bachat Bhawan at Una from respondent No.2. This shop was allotted on auction undertaken by and on behalf of respondent No.2.

(3.) Petitioner claims to have paid the agreed rent for about two yeas and thereafter he was involved in frivolous litigation during the years 1991 -92. In the shop in question, petitioner was carrying on the business of arms and ammunitions. As such, licence of his business was not renewed in time. This resulted in closure of the shop in question. Per him, he was involved in frivolous cases by the Punjab Police. He approached this Court as well as the High Court of Punjab & Haryana. He claims to have been provided security under the orders of Punjab & Haryana High Court when Inspector General of the Central Police Reserve Force was directed to do the needful at Garhshankar to him as well as his family in the State of Punjab.