Legal Document View

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

- Know your Kanoon - Doc Gen Hub - Counter Argument - Case Predict AI - Talk with IK Doc - ...
Upgrade to Premium
[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

State Of Haryana & Others vs Usha Rani on 4 April, 2016

Author: Mahesh Grover

Bench: Mahesh Grover, Lisa Gill

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
              CHANDIGARH

                               LPA No.497 of 2016 (O&M)

                               Date of Decision : 4.4.2016

State of Haryana and others
                                                  .....Appellants
              Versus

Usha Rani
                                                 ...Respondent

CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER
        HON'BLE MRS.JUSTICE LISA GILL
                  ....

            1. Whether Reporters of Local Newspapers may
               be allowed to see the judgment?
            2. To be referred to the Reporters or not?
            3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the
               Digest?
                          ...

Present: Mr.Sudeep Mahajan, Additional Advocate General,
         Haryana, for the appellants.
                     .....

MAHESH GROVER, J.

This is an appeal directed against the judgment of the learned Single Judge dated 1.12.2014 whereby the petition of the writ petitioner was disposed of in terms of Rajbir Singh v. State of Haryana and others (CWP No.25512 of 2012), decided on 14.11.2014 on the concession recorded by the learned counsel for the appellants (State of Haryana) who did not dispute this fact.

Before this Court, learned counsel for the appellants seeks to impugn the said judgment on merits and has tried to draw a distinction between Rajbir Singh's case and the case of the 1 of 2 ::: Downloaded on - 07-04-2016 00:08:57 ::: LPA No.497 of 2016 (O&M) -2- writ petitioner. To a pointed question whether Rajbir Singh's case had attained finality, learned counsel for the State made a candid statement in the affirmative.

Once the factum of the writ petitioner's claim being covered by the ratio of an earlier precedent was not disputed by the appellants, there would be no reason for us to interfere with it in the exercise of our jurisdiction in Letters Patent Appeal. The appellant, if aggrieved, may approach the learned Single Judge to highlight his grievance.

Apart from this, the appeal is barred by an inordinate delay of 456 days which has largely been attributed to procedures. However, while considering this lapse, we are of the opinion that the delay is also fatal to the case of the appellants as no particulars of procedural delay have been given.

Appeal dismissed.


                                           (MAHESH GROVER)
                                                JUDGE


4.4.2016                                         (LISA GILL)
dss                                                 JUDGE




                                2 of 2


           ::: Downloaded on - 07-04-2016 00:08:58 :::