Punjab-Haryana High Court
Ravi Parkash Chholia vs State Of Haryana & Ors on 15 December, 2014
Author: Rameshwar Singh Malik
Bench: Rameshwar Singh Malik
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
101 CWP-11482-2012
RAJESH KUMAR VS UNION OF INDIA AND OTHERS
Present: Mr.S.S.Duhan, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.D.S.Bishnoi, Advocate for the respondentS.
****
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks two weeks more
time to apprise this Court about issuance of order of appointment in favour
of the petitioner.
On his request, adjourned to 21.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
15.12.2014
mks
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
103 CM-15397-CWP-2014 in 2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CWP-16817-2006
SATBIR SINGH ANDD ANR. VS REGISTRAR COOP. SOCIETIES AND ORS.
Present: Mr.Parmod, Advocate for
Mr.Sandeep Gahlawat, Advocate for the applicants-petitioners
****
Learned proxy counsel seeks time on the ground that the
learned arguing counsel for the applicants-petitioners is in personal
difficulty.
On his request, adjourned to 21.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
15.12.2014
mks
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
105 CWP-14343-2014 2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
SANDEEP KUMAR VS STAFF SELECTION COMMISSION AND ORS.
Present: Mr.R.S.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocate for the respondents.
****
Learned counsel for the respondents seeks one last and final
opportunity to file reply.
On his request, adjourned to 19.3.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
15.12.2014
mks
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
108 2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.23828-2014
Date of decision: 15.12.2014
Ravi Parkash Cholia
...Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana and another
...Respondents
CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK
Present: Mr.Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, 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 file a fresh one and after impleading the selected candidates as party-respondents.
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 109 CWP-24578-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
JAGMAL SINGH AND ORS VS HSEDCL AND ORS Present: Mr.Deepak Sonak, Advocate for the petitioners.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioners places reliance on the seniority list (Annexure P-1) at page 19 of the paper-book, to contend, inter alia, that once the seniority list was common and respondents No. 2 to 4 were the juniors of the petitioners, respondent authorities misdirected themselves, while passing the impugned orders (Annexures P-6 to P-8) to deny the same service benefit to the petitioners, which has been granted to their juniors.
Notice of motion for 5.3.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 111 CWP-25545-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document BHOOP SINGH AND OTHERS VS HARYANA STATE COOPERATIVE SUPPLY AND MARKETING FEDERATION LTD.
Present: Mr.R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, inter alia, contends that action of the respondent authorities while passing the impugned order dated 22.5.2014 (Annexure P-8) was contrary to the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Civil Appeal No.4446 of 2008 (State of Haryana and another v. Deepak Sood and others), decided on 15.7.2008 (Annexure P-5) and also the instructions dated 16.12.2010 (Annexure P-6).
Notice of motion for 17.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 113 CWP-25547-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document SHARMILA VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ORS Present: Mr.Manoj Makkar, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that the petitioner was very much eligible as well as qualified for regularisation in view of the order passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court at Annexure P-4 at page 37 of the paper-book. However, he seeks time to place on record eligibility conditions as well as the qualification required to show that petitioner was duly qualified as well as fulfilled eligibility conditions.
On his request, adjourned to 18.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 115 CWP-25555-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document K. RADHAKRISHNAN NAIR VS UNION OF INDIA AND ORS Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner, inter alia, contends that the observations and directions issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 124 of the judgment in M.Nagaraj and others v. Union of India and others, 2006(8) SCT 212 have not been meticulously complied with by the respondent authorities before passing the impugned order.
Notice of motion for 21.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 116 CWP-25559-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document SOM DUTT SHARMA VS UNION OF INDIA AND ANOTHER Present: Mr.R.D.Bawa, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner refers to order dated 25.8.2014, (Annexure P-8), to contend, inter alia, that once N. Rajagopal, Assistant Administrative Officer was promoted to the post of Administrative Officer on 29.6.2008 despite the fact that he was going to retire on 30.6.2008, the petitioner could have been easily promoted as Assistant Administrative Officer against the vacancy created because of the retirement of S.C.Chakraborty on 31.5.2008.
Notice of motion.
At this stage, Mr.Vinod Sharma, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of the respondents.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply two sets of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the respondents during the course of day.
List on 27.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 117 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.25562-2014 Date of decision: 15.12.2014 Sanjeev Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Rakesh Kumar Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
*** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, fairly states that because of some serious but bonafide mistakes have crept in the writ petition, he will not be in a position to substantiate his arguments at this stage. Thus, he seeks permission of the Court to withdraw instant writ petition with liberty to file a fresh one with better particulars but on the same cause of action.
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 119 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CWP No.25570-2014 Date of decision: 15.12.2014 Ramesh Chander ...Petitioner Versus State of Haryana and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr. Rajeev Sharma, , 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 avail the remedy of statutory appeal at the first instance and thereafter remedy of revision, under the relevant provisions of law.
Permission is granted.
Dismissed as withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25585 of 2014
Date of decision:15.12.2014
M/s Sikand Motors through its Partner Bhupinder Singh ...Petitioner Versus The State Transport Commissioner, Punjab and another ...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.Anil Ahluwalia, 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, it finally approached the respondent authorities, by way of representation dated 4.11.2014 (Annexure P-2), 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 representation 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, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Patiala-respondent No.2, is MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25585 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide its representation dated 4.11.2014 (Annexure P-2) 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 two 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.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 121 CWP-25588-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
NEERA VERMA VS STATE OF HARYANA AND ANR Present: Mr.Jai Bhagwan Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that no show-cause notice was issued before ordering recovery from the petitioner after his retirement vide Annexure P-1. He also places reliance on notice of motion order in CWP No.24498 of 2014.
Notice of motion for 2.3.2015.
List alongwith CWP No.24498 of 2014.
Interim order in the same terms.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.25593 of 2014 Date of decision:15.12.2014 Rajiv Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus UT of Chandigarh 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.Sanjiv Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, 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/mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, fairly states that he does not intend to press this writ petition qua the writ of certiorari, for the time being. He further submits that petitioners will be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the self- contained representation dated 4.3.2014, submitted by the petitioners vide Annexure P-6 and recommended by respondent No.3 vide communication dated 13.3.2014 (Annexure P-7) within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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, Home Secretary, Union Territory, Chandigarh-respondent No.1, is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioners raised vide MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25593 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document their representation dated 4.3.2014 (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.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 123 CWP-25598-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
NITIN SEHGAL AND ANR VS KURUKSHETRA UNIVERSITY & ORS Present: Mr.D.S.Patwalia, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Sehaj Bir Singh, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Learned senior counsel for the petitioners places reliance on notice of motion order in CWP No.16446 of 2014 (Gulshan Kumar v. State of Haryana and others), which is stated to be listed on 19.3.2015.
Notice of motion for 19.3.2015.
To be heard with CWP No.16446 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.25600 of 2014 Date of decision: 15.12.2014 Suresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Staff Selection Commission and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.Arun Luthra , 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 Certiorari/Mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that he does not intend to press this writ petition qua the writ of certiorari, for the time being. He further submits that whatever doubt was there about the OBC Certificate of the petitioner that was duly examined and issue was resolved which is clear from communication dated 6.3.2014 (Annexure P-14). However, respondent No.1 is not deciding the matter without disclosing any reason and despite there being no fault on the part of the petitioner. He further submits that petitioner has been found fully eligible and competent for the post in question. He concluded by submitting that petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide the matter within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioner and without MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25600 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document 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, Director, Staff Selection Commission-respondent No.1, is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide his self- contained representation dated 11.2.2014 (Annexure P-11) and subsequent correspondence including letters dated 18.2.2014 (Annexure P-12) and 6.3.2014 (Annexure P-14), as the grievance of the petitioner prima facie seems to be genuine. Let respondent No.1 take the compassionate view of the matter deciding the grievance of the petitioner at an early date, passing the final appropriate order, strictly in accordance with law, but in any case within a period of two 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.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 125 CWP-25605-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
ATTAR SINGH & ORS VS M.D. DHBVNL & ORS Present: Mr.Sarvosh Goyal, Advocate for Mr.Rajsh Bansal, Advocate for the petitioners. **** Learned proxy counsel seeks time on the ground that the learned arguing counsel for the petitioners is in personal difficulty.
On his request, adjourned to 26.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 126 CWP-25609-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 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.23699 of 2014 with the present case.
List on 19.12.2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.25612 of 2014 Date of decision:15.12.2014 Naresh Kumar ...Petitioner Versus The Haryana Urban Development Authority 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.Surinder S. Kaliramna, 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 representation dated 25.6.2014 (Annexure P-3), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent No.3 is directed to consider and decide the representation 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, Haryana Urban Development Authority, HUDA- MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
CWP No.25612 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document respondent No.3, is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide his representation dated 25.6.2014 (Annexure P-3) 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.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 128 CWP-25621-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document ISHWAR SINGH VS DHBVNL AND ORS Present: Mr.R.K.Arora, Advocate for
Mr.Jaswant Jain, Advocate for the petitioner. **** Learned counsel for the petitioner places reliance on the judgment dated 13.8.2014 (Annexure P-3) passed by this Court in CWP No.27669 of 2013 (Mahipal v. Food Corporation of India and others), to contend, inter alia, that the respondent authorities have failed to consider the true import of the provisions of Persons with Disabilities (Equal Opportunities Protection of Rights and Full Participation) Act, 1995, with a view to grant the benefit of the said Act to the petitioner.
Notice of motion for 8.1.2015.
Process dasti only.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.25546-2014 Date of decision: 15.12.2014 Rajesh Kumar and others ...Petitioners Versus Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited and others ...Respondents CORAM:HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK Present: Mr.R.K.Malik , Sr. Advocate with Mr.Vijay Dahiya, Advocate for the petitioners.
*** RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, petitioners have 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 certiorari/mandamus.
Learned senior counsel for the petitioners, at the very outset, fairly states that he does not intend to press this writ petition qua the writ of certiorari, for the time being. He further submits that when the grievance of the petitioners was not being redressed by the respondent authorities, they finally approached the respondent authorities by way of legal notice dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure P-8), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioners will be satisfied in case respondent No.1 is directed to consider and decide their legal notice, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned senior counsel for the petitioners and without expressing any opinion on the merits of the case, including the issue MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25546-2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document of limitation, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, the Managing Director, Haryana Power Generation Corporation Limited, Panchkula-respondent No.1 is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioners, raised vide their legal notice dated 21.10.2014 (Annexure P-8) 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.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.19318 of 2014 Date of decision:15.12.2014 Amarjit Singh ...Petitioner Versus
State Information Commissioner, 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.Vishwajit Bedi, 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 writ petition qua the writ of certiorari, for the time being. He further submits that given an opportunity, petitioner will approach respondent No.1 for the said relief, at the first instance. He would next contend that representations dated 14.8.2014 (Annexure P-7) and 20.8.2014 (Annexures P-8), moved by the petitioner, are still pending decision before the concerned authorities and no action is being taken thereon. He further submits that petitioner will be satisfied in case concerned authorities are directed to consider and decide the representations 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 MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.19318 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Senior Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide his representation dated 14.8.2014 (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 one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
Similarly, District Food and Supply Controller, District Patiala- respondent No.3 is directed to consider the complaint submitted by the petitioner vide his representation dated 20.8.2014 (Annexure P-8) 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 one month from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.23803 of 2014 Date of decision:15.12.2014 Rajbir Singh and others ...Petitioners 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.P.Chahar, Advocate for the petitioners. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) Feeling aggrieved against the alleged inaction on the part of respondent authorities, 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 mandamus.
Learned counsel for the petitioners submits that when the grievance of the petitioners was not being redressed, they finally approached the respondent authorities, by way of legal notice dated 23.2.2014 (Annexure P-6), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioners will be satisfied in case respondent No.2 is directed to consider and decide the legal notice of the petitioners, within a reasonable time.
Having heard the learned counsel for the petitioners 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, the Director, Secondary Education, Haryana-respondent No.2, is directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioners raised vide MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.23803 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document their legal notice dated 23.2.2014 (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.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25544 of 2014
Date of decision:15.12.2014
Vinod Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran 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.S.S.Duhan, 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus, yet he could not make an appropriate representation in the recent past. He further submits that given an opportunity, petitioner shall approach the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.3 by moving an appropriate representation within a period of four 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 limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Superintendent Engineer, (OP), Circle Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25544 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Nigam Limited, Jind-respondent No.3, is directed that if the petitioner approaches him by moving an 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 petitioner.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25551 of 2014
Date of decision:15.12.2014
Satsih Kumar
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran 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.S.S.Duhan, 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus, yet he could not make an appropriate representation in the recent past. He further submits that given an opportunity, petitioner shall approach the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.2 by moving an appropriate representation within a period of four weeks from today and respondent No.2 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 limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Superintendent Engineer, (OP), Circle Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25551 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Nigam Limited, Jind-respondent No.2, is directed that if the petitioner approaches him by moving an 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 petitioner.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
mks JUDGE
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT
2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
CHANDIGARH
CWP No.25569 of 2014
Date of decision:15.12.2014
Dilbag Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran 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.S.S.Duhan, 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 a writ in the nature of mandamus, yet he could not make an appropriate representation in the recent past. He further submits that given an opportunity, petitioner shall approach the competent authority, i.e. respondent No.2 by moving an appropriate representation within a period of four weeks from today and respondent No.2 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 limitation, if any, lest it should prejudice the rights of either of the parties, Superintendent Engineer, (OP), Circle Uttar Haryana Vidyut Parsaran MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.25569 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Nigam Limited, Jind-respondent No.2, is directed that if the petitioner approaches him by moving an 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 petitioner.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP Nos. 4082 and 5446 of 2010 and 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CWP No.11490 of 2012 and CWP No.15937 of 2013 Present: Mr.Kanwaljit Singh, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Munish Kapila, Advocate, Mr.Ish Puneet Singh, Advocate,
Mr.Ashok Kumar Nabhewala, Advocate and Mr.Sardavinder Goyal, Advocate for the petitioner(s). Mr.Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab.
Mr.H.C.Arora, Advocate and Mr.Manpreet Singh, Advocate.
**** Learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that identical issue is pending consideration before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP No.34793 of 2012. Thus, they seek time to await the decision of the Hon'ble Supreme Court.
List on 31.3.2015.
A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.18918 of 2010 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Present: Ms.Sanamjeet Kaur, Advocate for Mr.Ashwani Talwar, Advocate for the petitioners. Mr.P.S.Poonia, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Jagbir Malik, Advocate, for respondents No.4, 5, 7, 8, 9, 13 to 15, 20, 21, 28 to 30, 32 to 34, 36, 39, 43 to 52, 55, 58 to 60, 67, 69 to 72, 74, 77, 81, 84, 86, 87, 89, 93, 94, 97, 101, 103, 105, 106, 111, 119, 125, 126 and 141. Mr.B.S.Rathee, Advocate for respondents No. 14, 18, 23, 66, 75, 76, 87, 88, 91, 95, 99, 115, 17, 120, 124 and 134.
**** Heard.
Admitted.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK)
JUDGE
15.12.2014
mks
MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA
CWP-14789-2011 2014.12.16 10:09
I attest to the accuracy and
authenticity of this document
Present: Mr.Balraj Gujjar, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.P.S.Poonia, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. **** Heard.
Admitted.
To be heard alongwith CWP No.18918 of 2010.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 244 CWP-18229-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Pritam Pal v. UOI and others Present: Mr.Sandeep Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Naveen Mahajan, Advocate for UOI. **** Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner is apprehending the retirement at the hands of the respondent authorities on 31.12.2014. However, learned counsel for the respondents submits that there is no such move at the hands of the respondents to retire the petitioner on 31.12.2014.
In view of the above, the matter is adjourned to 7.4.2015 for arguments.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 245 CWP-18338-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Vishal Gupta v. State of Punjab and others Present: Mr.Mohinder Kumar, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab.
**** Learned counsel for the State submits that reply is ready and he will file the same in the registry within a period of one week from today with an advance to the counsel opposite.
Let him do so.
List on 10.4.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 246 CWP-18342-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Smt.Darshan Devi v. UHBVN and others Present: Mr.Y.P.Malik, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.P.S.Poonia, Advocate for the respondents. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appears and seeks time to file reply.
On his request, adjourned to 20.4.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 247 CWP-20419, 20425, 20188, 20438 to 20444 of 2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Present: Mr.Lekh Raj Sharma, Advocate for the petitioners.
Mr.Manoj Kumar Sangwan, DAG, Haryana. **** Learned counsel for the petitioners seeks time to file replication.
On his request, adjourned to 20.4.2015. A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.23301 of 2014 Date of decision:15.12.2014 Manjeet Kumar ...Petitioner Versus Union of India 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.Jai Vir Yadav, Advocate for the petitioner.
Ms.Sheena Khana, Advocate for Mr.Naveen Chopra, Advocate for the respondents. RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK, J. (Oral) In compliance of the order dated 14.11.2014, medical report dated 9.12.2014 of the Medical Board, constituted by the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh, has been received. This was the only precise grievance of the petitioner raised by the petitioner in the present writ petition.
Learned counsel for the petitioner, at the very outset, fairly states that since the medical report of Medical Board, constituted by the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh, has been received, let respondent authorities be directed to go ahead on the basis of medical report dated 9.12.2014 and take the matter to the logical end within a reasonable time.
Faced with the above-said situation, learned counsel for the respondents could not oppose the fair statement made by the learned counsel for the petitioner.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is disposed of with a direction to the Inspector General, Boarder Security Force, HQ, MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.23301 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document B.S.F., Jodhpur-respondent No.2 to look into the matter, re-consider the claim of the petitioner, in view of medical report dated 9.12.2014 of the Medical Board constituted by the Director, PGIMER, Chandigarh, in compliance of the order dated 14.11.2014 passed by this Court and pass the final order at an early date, strictly in accordance with law but in any case within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a certified copy of this order.
With the abovesaid observations made and directions issued, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 249 CWP-23715-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Manoj Kumar v. UT Chandigarh and others Present: MrVishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appear and seek time to file their respective written statements.
On their joint request, adjourned to 22.1.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 250 CWP-23987-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Gurvinder Singh v. UT Chandigarh and others Present: MrVishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appear and seek time to file their respective written statements.
On their joint request, adjourned to 22.1.2015. To be heard alongwith CWP No.23715 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 251 CWP-23988-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Deepak Saini v. UT Chandigarh and others Present: MrVishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appear and seek time to file their respective written statements.
On their joint request, adjourned to 22.1.2015. To be heard alongwith CWP No.23715 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 252 CWP-24017-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Sunita Devi v. UT Chandigarh and others Present: MrVishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appear and seek time to file their respective written statements.
On their joint request, adjourned to 22.1.2015. To be heard alongwith CWP No.23715 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 129 CWP-25625-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Ranbir Singh v.UT Chandigarh and others Present: Mr.Arjun Sheoran, Advocate for the petitioner.
**** Learned counsel for the petitioner relies on notice of motion order in CWP No.23715 of 2014, which is stated to be listed for 22.1.2015, to contend, inter alia, that present one is an identical writ petition.
Notice of motion.
On the asking of Court, Mr. Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms. Smriti Dhir, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 and 2, whereas Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate, accepts notice on behalf of respondent No.3.
Learned counsel for the petitioner undertakes to supply requisite number of copies of the writ petition to the learned counsel for the petitioner during the course of the day.
List on 22.1.2015.
To be heard alongwith CWP No.23715 of 2014. Interim order in the same terms.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 255 RA-62-C-2014 in 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document RSA-752-2005 M/s Doaba Hoteliers Pvt. Limited, Jullundur v.
Krishna Wati and others Present: Mr.A.K.Chopra, Sr. Advocate with Mr.Harminder Singh, Advcoate for the applicant-appellant. **** On request, adjourned to 20.2.2015.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document CHANDIGARH CWP No.5496 of 2014 Date of decision:15.12.2014 New Guru Kanshi Highways Regd. Through its Managing Partner ...Petitioner Versus The Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda ...Respondent 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.Rajinder Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Piyush Bansal, DAG, Punjab.
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, it finally approached the respondent authorities, by way of legal notice dated 8.1.2014 (Annexure P-7), but the same is also pending decision. He further submits that the petitioner will be satisfied in case respondent 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, the Secretary, Regional Transport Authority, Bathinda-respondent, is MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA CWP No.5496 of 2014 -2- 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document directed to look into the matter, consider the grievance of the petitioner raised vide its legal notice dated 8.1.2014 (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, the present writ petition stands disposed of.
15.12.2014 (RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) mks JUDGE MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 253 CWP-24030-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document
Sonika Bhatia v. UT Chandigarh and others Present: MrVishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appear and seek time to file their respective written statements.
On their joint request, adjourned to 22.1.2015. To be heard alongwith CWP No.23715 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks MUKESH KUMAR SALUJA 254 CWP-24136-2014 2014.12.16 10:09 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Ambika v. UT Chandigarh and others Present: MrVishal Aggarwal, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Jaivir Chandel, Advocate for Ms.Smriti Dhir, Advocate for respondents No. 1 and 2. Mr.Brijeshwar Kanwar, Advocate for respondent No.3. **** Learned counsel for the respondents appear and seek time to file their respective written statements.
On their joint request, adjourned to 22.1.2015. To be heard alongwith CWP No.23715 of 2014.
(RAMESHWAR SINGH MALIK) JUDGE 15.12.2014 mks