Pankaj Raj Garg vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 January, 2026

[Cites 1, Cited by 0]

Punjab-Haryana High Court

Pankaj Raj Garg vs State Of Punjab And Ors on 13 January, 2026

Bench: Suvir Sehgal

CWP-223-2026                          -1-


      IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
                   CHANDIGARH

137                                           CWP-223-2026
                                              Date of Decision:13.01.2026


PANKAJ RAJ GARG                                        ...PETITIONER

                                VERSUS

STATE OF PUNJAB AND ORS                              ...RESPONDENTS


CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE SUVIR SEHGAL


Present:    Mr. Arkash Mani Garg, Advocate
            for the petitioner.

            Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab.

            Mr. Baltej Singh Sidhu, Senior Advocate with
            Mr. Himmat Singh Sidhu, Advocate and
            Mr. Gurmeet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate
            for respondent No.3.

                  ****

SUVIR SEHGAL, J.(ORAL)

1. Insofar as the first prayer is concerned, at the outset, counsel for the petitioner seeks and is granted permission to withdraw the writ petition with liberty to avail appropriate remedy in accordance with law.

2. Counsel for the petitioner submits that petitioner, who is 63 years old, is a victim of a dog bite. He has made a reference to photographs, Annexure P-1, as well as medical record, Annexure P-2, to assert that petitioner had to undergo treatment and anti-rabies injections were also 1 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:27:43 ::: CWP-223-2026 -2- administered. Counsel states that petitioner served a legal notice dated 12.12.2025, Annexure P-4, seeking compensation in view of the judgment of this Court rendered in CWP-22904-2016 titled as Rajwinder Kaur and another Vs. State of Haryana and others. Counsel asserts that notice has not been attended to.

3. Advance copy of the petition has been served upon the respondents.

4. On asking of the Court, Mr. Siddharth Sandhu, AAG, Punjab, has put in appearance on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2.

5. Mr. Gurmeet Singh Budhiraja, Advocate has put in appearance on behalf of respondent No.3. He does not have any instructions qua legal notice, Annexure P-4.

6. Given the nature of order proposed to be passed, this Court does not intend to call for a response from respondents.

7. A perusal of the petition shows that petitioner has submitted a representation, Annexure P-4, which was duly served as is evident from postal receipts as well as tracking report, Annexure P-5. Representation is stated to be pending.

8. In view thereof, without examining the grievance on merits, writ petition is disposed of with a direction to competent authority to examine representation, Annexure P-4, and grant compensation to petitioner in terms of the judgment of this Court in Rajwinder Kaur's case (supra), in case he is found entitled to the same.

2 of 3 ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:27:44 ::: CWP-223-2026 -3-

9. Needless to mention, in case, competent authority finds that claim cannot be acceded to, a speaking order assigning reasons for rejection shall be passed within a period of three months.




13.01.2026                                             (SUVIR SEHGAL)
sheetal                                                    JUDGE

              Whether Speaking/Reasoned       Yes/No
              Whether Reportable              Yes/No




                                     3 of 3
                  ::: Downloaded on - 17-01-2026 20:27:44 :::

Unlock Advanced Research with PRISMAI

Punjab-Haryana High Court