Mam Chand Son Of Shri Rattan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 May, 2012

[Cites 0, Cited by 1]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Mam Chand Son Of Shri Rattan Singh vs State Of Haryana on 21 May, 2012

Bench: K. Kannan

     IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
                     AT CHANDIGARH

                  Civil Writ Petition No.8923 of 2010 (O&M)
                  Date of decision:21.05.2012

Mam Chand son of Shri Rattan Singh, resident of Village
Kakarali, Post Office Toda, District Panchkula, and others.
                                                   ...Petitioners

                             versus


State of Haryana, through Financial Commissioner and Principal
Secretary to Government, Haryana, Cooperation Department,
Haryana Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, and others.
                                              ....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN
                 ----

Present:   Mr. Pankaj Kumar, Advocate, for Mr. Harkesh
           Manuja, Advocate, for the petitioners.

           Mr. Kshitij Sharma, Assistant Advocate General,
           Haryana, for respondents 1 and 2.

           Mr. Pradeep Solath, Advocate, for respondent No.3.

           Mr. Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate, for respondents 4
           and 5.
                          ----
1.    Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see    the
      judgment ? No.
2.    To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.
3.    Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ?    No.
                             ----

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

1. The counsel for the respondent states that the petitioners have challenged the seniority list which is the subject matter of the writ petition through an appeal filed before the Civil Writ Petition No.8923 of 2010 (O&M) -2- Registrar. The counsel for the respondent also points out that the petitioners have not been ready ever since the reply has been filed setting out the above facts.

2. The counsel appearing on behalf of the petitioners seeks for adjournment. Having regard to the fact that the petitioners have availed of another alternative remedy which is equally efficacious, the petitioners shall not be allowed to continue the proceedings.

3. The writ petition is dismissed, but the petitioners will be at liberty to prosecute the case which is said to be pending before the Registrar. The petitioners are also at liberty to approach this Court for any review of the order, if the appeal had not been prosecuted or had been withdrawn prior to the passing of this order.

4. With these observations, the writ petition is disposed off.

(K.KANNAN) JUDGE 21.05.2012 sanjeev

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court