Punjab-Haryana High Court
Mohinder Singh vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Viktran Nigam ... on 19 December, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
CWP No. 2014.12.19 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Present:
****
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
19.12.2014
mks
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
2014.12.19 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.
Date of decision:19.12.2014
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present:
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.26052 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Mahesh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Rakesh Nagpal, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari/mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that he does not intend to press this petition qua the writ of certiorari, for the time being. However, he submits that given an opportunity, petitioner shall approach the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.2 by moving an appropriate representation along with all the material available with the petitioner for consideration of his grievance for absorption in the respondent-Board and he may be directed to consider and decide the same, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Chief Administrator, Haryana State Agricultural Marketing Board-respondent No.2, is directed that if the MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.26052 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document petitioner approaches him by moving an appropriate representation within a period of two weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same, at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioner. However, respondent No.2 shall not reject the claim of the petitioner only on the ground that he has not completed one year of service on deputation.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of. 19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.26070 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Smt. Phool Kaur ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.S.S.Brar, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court, by way of instant writ petition under Article 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of Mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed by the respondent authorities, she finally approached the respondent authorities by way of legal notice dated 1.7.2013 (Annexure P-7), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide her legal notice, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the issue of limitation, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Haryana-respondent MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.26070 of 2014 -2- No.2 is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner, raised vide her legal notice dated 1.7.2013 (Annexure P-7) and decide the same, at an early date by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present petition stands disposed of.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 101 CM-15530-CWP-2014 in CWP-13694-2014 JONY KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Present: None for the applicants. ****
To be heard with the main case on the date already fixed, i.e. 20.1.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.23973 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Subhash Chander ...Petitioner Versus The State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: None for the petitioner.
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.
Case called twice. Neither anybody has come present on behalf of the petitioner nor any request for pass over has been made.
After careful perusal of the record of the case, this Court is of the considered view that in view of communication dated 9.4.2014 (Annexure P-2) issued by respondent No.2 to the petitioner, the matter regarding regularisation of services of contingent paid employees was under
consideration of the Government. It has further been stated therein that as and when the appropriate policy is issued by the Government, necessary action in this regard will be taken, accordingly. The relevant part of communication dated 9.4.2014 (Annexure P-2), reads as under:-
"It is to inform you that Shri Subhash son of Shri Balbir Singh was appointed as Member Bhajan Party on fixed MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.23973 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document monthly wages paid out of contingencies and he is working such as in the Office of DIPRO, Sonipat. The policy regarding regularization of service of contingent paid employee is under consideration by the Government as and when policy is issued by the Government. Necessary action in this regard will be taken accordingly.
Sd/-Superintendent (Estt.) For Director General Information, Public Relations & Cultural Affairs, Haryana."
In view of the above, the present writ petition is prima facie premature and the same is hereby disposed of, as such.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 102 CWP-23973-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
SUBHASH CHANDER VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 103 CWP-25609-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document MAHARISHI DAYANAND EDUCATION SOCIETY AND ANR. VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS.
Present: Mr.P.K.Mutneja, Advocate for the petitioners.
**** Office is directed to attach the record of CWP No.19526 of 2013 also with the present case.
List on 22.12.2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 104 CWP-26052-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document MAHESH KUMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.26054 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Nirbhey Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Sumeet Puri, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that although the petitioner is seeking only a writ in the nature of mandamus and has also submitted his representation dated 1.2.2014 (Annexure P-2), yet he may be permitted to supplement the representation (Annexure P-2) by moving a self-contained legal notice within a period of three weeks from today and the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.1 may be directed to consider and decide the same, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Secretary, Department of Home Affairs, Union of India-respondent No.1, is directed that if the petitioner approaches him by moving an appropriate legal notice supplementing his already moved MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.26054 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document representation dated 1.2.2014 (Annexure P-2) within a period of three weeks from today, he shall consider the grievance of the petitioner, which prima facie seems to be genuine, taking a sympathetic view of the matter, and decide the same at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of legal notice from the petitioner.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 105 CWP-26054-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
NIRBHEY SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ANR Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 106 CWP-26062-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document KAVITA KUMARI AND ORS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Present: Mr.Jasbir Mor, Advocate for the petitioners.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on notice of motion order in CWP No.3 of 2011, which is stated to be listed for hearing on 12.1.2015, to contend, inter alia, that the present writ petition is an identical one.
Notice of motion for 12.1.2015.
Process dasti as well.
To be heard alongwith CWP No.3 of 2011.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No. Date of decision:19.12.2014 ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present:
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) 19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 107 CWP-26070-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document PHOOL KAUR VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 108 CWP-26082-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document SURENDER SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on medical report of the petitioner contained in Annexures P-1 and P-2 and also his representation (Annexure P-4), which was duly recommended for favourable consideration by the competent authority, to contend, inter alia, that before passing the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-5), none of the above-said material issues have been considered.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr.Naveen Chopra, Advocate, appears and accepts notice on behalf of the respondents and seeks time to file reply, if any.
List on 27.3.2015.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order dated 21.5.2014 (Annexure P-3) qua the petitioner as well as the operation of the impugned order dated 15.12.2014 (Annexure P-5) shall remain stayed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 109 CWP-26087-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document SAHIB BUS SERVICE PVT LTD AMRISTAR VS S.T.A.T PUNJAB & ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
110 CWP-26102-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RAJESH KUMAR AND OTHERS VS STATE OF HARYANA AND OTHERS Present: Mr.B.S.Rana, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Rajinder Paul, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Learned senior counsel for the petitioners refers to the order dated 15.12.2005 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in CWP No.19518 of 2005 (Rajnish Sharma v. State of Haryana and others) and order passed thereon by the Managing Director, HAFED, on 14.6.2006 (Annexure P-4), to contend, inter alia, that respondent No.4 intentionally concealed the material fact from the notice of this Court, while making factually incorrect averments in para 21 at page 59 of the paper-book in his writ petition bearing CWP No.5495 of 2008, thereby concealing the above-said material fact at Annexures P-3 and P-4 because of which, this Court was misled. Respondent No.4 also kept the respondent authorities in dark and secured favourable orders. Since respondent No.4 has been indulging in all these activities in clandestine manner, petitioners remained under bonafide impression but now they came to know about the actual truth, they are approaching this Court by way of instant writ petition. He would next contend that fraud vitiates everything and in such a situation, respondent No.4 would be liable to be dealt with suitably who has tried his level best to misuse the process of law.
Notice of motion for 27.3.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.26105 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 K.L.Sharma and another ...Petitioners Versus Chandigarh Administration and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.H.S.Baath, Advocate for the petitioners. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the order dated 16.10.2014 (Anneure P-5), petitioners have approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of certiorari.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that he does not intend to press this writ petition for the writ in the nature of certiorari, for the time being. However, he submits that given an opportunity, petitioners shall approach the respondent authorities by moving an appropriate representation within a period of four weeks from today, at the first instance and respondent No.2 may be directed to consider and decide the same, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the issue of limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Secretary, House Allotment Committee, Chandigarh-respondent No.2, is directed that if the petitioners approach him by moving an MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.26105 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document appropriate representation within a period of four weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of representation from the petitioners.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 111 CWP-26105-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
KL SHARMA AND ORS VS CHANDIGARH ADMINISTRATION AND ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 112 CWP-26108-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document THE KRISHNA TRANSPORT COOP . SOCIETY VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Present: Mr.Baldev Kapoor, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on notice of motion order in CWP No.25411 of 2014, which is stated to be listed for hearing on 27.2.2015, to contend inter alia, that present writ petition is an identical one.
Notice of motion for 27.2.2015.
To be heard along with CWP No. 25411 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No. Date of decision: 10.12.2014 ...Petitioner Versus ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. , Advocate for the petitioner.
***
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral)
10.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
113 2014.12.19 17:50
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26120 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Champa and others ...Petitioners Versus Vice Chancellor, Chaudhary Charan Singh Haryana Agricultural University, Hisar and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Dilbagh Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioners seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioners to pursue their remedy with the respondent authorities, at the first instance.
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 114 CWP-26126-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
SOMENDER KUMAR VS STATE OF HARYANA & ORS. Present: Mr.Vikas Lochab, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that before passing the impugned order dated 11.12.2014 (Annexure P-3), whereby major punishment has been awarded to the petitioner stopping his four annual increments with cumulative effect, not even a show cause notice was issued to the petitioner, thereby glaringly violating the basic principles of natural justice.
Notice of motion for 30.3.2015.
In the meantime, operation of the impugned order shall remain stayed.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 115 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26134 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Mohinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.Malkiat Singh, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the respondent authorities, at the first instance.
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 115 CWP-26134-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
MOHINDER SINGH VS UTTAR HARYANA BIJLI VIKTRAN NIGAM LIMITED AND OTHERS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 116 CWP-26147-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document OM PARKASH VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 117 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26150 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Jitendra Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Harshit Sethi, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that since because of inadvertent mistake on his part, validity of order (Annexure P-9) could not be challenged and in the absence thereof, he will not be in a position to substantiate his arguments, at this stage. Thus, he seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh one on the same cause of action, but with better particulars including to lay challenge to the order (Annexure P-9).
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 117 CWP-26150-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
JITENDRA SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.26174 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Surinder Pal ...Petitioner Versus H.V.P.N.L. and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present:
Mr.R.S.Panghal, Advocate for the petitioner.
-.-
RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that when the grievance of the petitioner was not being redressed, he finally approached the respondent authorities, by way of legal notice dated 16.7.2014 (Annexure P-6), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the legal notice of the petitioner, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of case, including the issue of limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Superintending Engineer (Admin-2), HVPNL-respondent No.2, is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.26174 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document his legal notice dated 16.7.2014 (Annexure P-6) and decide the same at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of three months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the abovesaid observations made, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 118 CWP-26174-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document SURINDER PAL VS HVPNL & ORS. Present: **** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.26178 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Mandeep Singh ...Petitioner Versus Union of India and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ?
Present: Mr.Vikas Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioner has approached this Court by way of instant writ petition under Articles 226/227 of the Constitution of India, seeking a writ in the nature of mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that although petitioner is seeking only a writ in the nature of mandamus, yet he could not serve the respondent authorities by way of an appropriate and self-contained representation because the cryptic application dated 12.9.2014 (Annexure P-4) submitted by the petitioner, was lacking in material particulars. He further submits that given an opportunity, he himself will serve the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.3 by issuing an appropriate legal notice within a period of three weeks from today and respondent No.3 may be directed to consider and decide the same, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the issue of MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.26178 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Commandant, Army Recruitment Office, ARO, Patiala-respondent No.3, is directed that if the petitioner approaches him by moving an appropriate legal notice within a period of three weeks from today, he shall consider and decide the same at an early date, by passing an appropriate order thereon, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of six weeks from the date of receipt of legal notice from the petitioner.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 119 CWP-26178-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
MANDEEP SINGH VS UNION OF INDIA & ORS Present:
**** (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 120 CWP-26179-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document DEVENDER KUMAR VS HSAMB PANCHKULA AND ANR Present: Mr.Rajbir Sehrawat, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to decision of Board of Directors on item No. 15 at page 36 of the paper-book, which is part of impugned order (Annexure P-12), to contend, inter alia, that the statutory appeal of the petitioner was dismissed by a non-speaking and cryptic order, thereby causing serious prejudice to the petitioner.
Notice of motion for 30.3.2015.
In the meantime, if recovery, pursuant to the order dated 27.5.2013 (Annexure P-11), has not been effected from the petitioner so far, it shall not be effected till further orders.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 121 CWP-26188-2014 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document BALA DUTT VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR.
Present: Mr.J.B.Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on notice of motion order passed in CWP No.24498 of 2014 and CWP No.25588 of 2014, to contend, inter alia, that the present writ petition is an identical one.
Notice of motion for 2.3.2015.
To be heard with CWP No.24498 of 2014.
Interim order in the same terms.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 19.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 109 2014.12.19 17:50 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.26087 of 2014 Date of decision:19.12.2014 Sahib Bus Service Pvt. Limited Amritsar through its Managing Director ...Petitioner Versus State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab and others ...Respondents CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
1. To be referred to the Reporters or not ?
2. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? Present: Mr.P.S.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) After arguing the case for some time, learned counsel for the petitioner seeks permission of the Court to withdraw the present writ petition with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Transport Authority, at the first instance, as directed by the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Punjab.
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
19.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE