Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

HAWA SINGH & ANR. versus SHRI M.L. TAYAL & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Hawa Singh & Anr. v. Shri M.L. Tayal & Anr. - COCP-907-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 12984 (21 December 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CM No.23114-C of 2006 in

COCP No.907 of 2004 (O&M)

Date of decision: November 27, 2006.

Hawa Singh & Anr.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Shri M.L. Tayal & Anr.

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Subhash Ahuja, Advocate for the applicant-petitioners.

Shri R.D. Sharma, Dy. Advocate General, Haryana for the respondents.

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

CM No.23114-C of 2006

Notice to the A.G., Haryana. Mr. R.D. Sharma, DAG, Haryana accepts notice.

For the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. The order dated October 31, 2006 is recalled. With the consent of Learned Counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up on board for final disposal.

Contempt Petition

This contempt petition has been filed, inter-alia, alleging that CWP No. 3257 of 2001 filed by the petitioner along with some other persons was disposed of by this court on 6.3.2001 with a direction to dispose of the representation/justice demand notice which the petitioners had already served upon the authorities by passing a speaking order within four months. It is alleged that no such speaking order has been passed and/or communicated to the petitioners though some benefit has been granted to their co-writ petitioners.

Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, contends that since the claim of the co-writ petitioners has already been considered and decided, there appears to be no reason that the authorities would not have decided the petitioners' claim as well.

Be that as it may, this contempt petition is disposed of with the following directions to the Director, Primary Education, Haryana:- (i)if the petitioners' claim has already been disposed of in compliance to the order dated 6.3.2001 passed by this Court in CWP No.3257 of 2001, a copy of the decision taken thereupon be communicated to the petitioners within one month from today;

(ii) if the petitioners' claim has yet not been considered, the same shall be considered within a period of two months from today and a communication to this effect shall be sent to them.

Rule discharged.

November 27, 2006. [ Surya Kant ]

kadyan 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.