Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ KUMAR SINDHU versus STATE OF HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Kumar Sindhu v. State of Haryana & Anr - CWP-6451-2000 [2006] RD-P&H 1050 (21 February 2006)

IN THE COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH CM No.20878 of 2005 and

CWP NO.6451 of 2000

DATE OF DECISION:March 2, 2006

Raj Kumar Sindhu

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
PRESENT: Ms.Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner.

Shri D.S.Nalwa, DAG, Haryana.

JUDGMENT (ORAL)

The learned counsel for the applicant-petitioner states that during the pendency of the present writ petition, orders dated September 9,2005 and October 6, 2005 have been passed which are adverse to the petitioner. In these circumstances, the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-petitioner states that the application for amendment as well as the main writ petition may be dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh writ petition making the claim, as originally made in the present writ petition as well as challenging the subsequent orders dated September 9,2005 and October 6, 2005. The learned counsel also requests that any recovery to be effected from the petitioner be stayed for a period of four weeks.

Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, I find that the request made by the learned counsel appearing for the applicant-writ petitioner is absolutely fair and justified.

CM No.20878 of 2005 and

Consequently, the miscellaneous application seeking amendment of the writ petition as well as the main writ petition are dismissed as withdrawn with a liberty to the petitioner to file a fresh petition on the same cause of action by making all such claims which have been made in the present writ petition as well as challenging the orders dated September 9,2005 and October 6, 2005. It is further directed that for a period of four weeks from today, no recovery shall be effected from the petitioner.

A copy of the order be given dasti on payment of usual charges.

March 02, 2006 (Viney Mittal)

KD Judge


Copyright

Reproduced in accordance with s52(q) of the Copyright Act 1957 (India) from judis.nic.in, indiacode.nic.in and other Indian High Court Websites

Advertisement

dwi Attorney | dui attorney | dwi | dui | austin attorney | san diego attorney | houston attorney | california attorney | washington attorney | minnesota attorney | dallas attorney | alaska attorney | los angeles attorney | dwi | dui | colorado attorney | new york attorney | new jersey attorney | san francisco attorney | seattle attorney | florida attorney | attorney | london lawyer | lawyer michigan | law firm |

Tip:
Double Click on any word for its dictionary meaning or to get reference material on it.