Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

ANAND KUMAR & ORS. versus SHRI P.C. BIDHAN

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Anand Kumar & Ors. v. Shri P.C. Bidhan - COCP-1007-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 12987 (21 December 2006)

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

COCP No.1007 of 2006

Date of decision: November 27, 2006.

Anand Kumar & Ors.

...Petitioner(s)

v.

Shri P.C. Bidhan

...Respondent(s)

Present: Shri Ram Kumar Malik, Advocate for the petitioners.

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

Surya Kant, J. (Oral)

The petitioners filed CWP No.16828 of 2002, which was disposed of by this Court on January 20, 2006 with a direction to reconsider their claim in the light of the judgment of this Court dated August 17,2005 passed in CWP No.18333 of 2002 (Tilak Raj v. State of Haryana & Ors.).

Alleging non-compliance of the above stated order, this contempt petition has been filed in which on August 10, 2006, Learned State Counsel was asked to get instructions.

In compliance thereto, an affidavit has been filed by P.C.

Bidhan, Director, Women and Child Development Department, Haryana and as per the averments made in para 2 of the said affidavit, judgment rendered by this Court in Tilak Raj's case has already been impugned before the Hon'ble Supreme Court in SLP(C) No.1969 of 2006 and operation thereof has been stated by their Lordships of the Hon'ble Supreme Court vide order dated March 10, 2006.

Learned State Counsel, on the basis of the averments made in the affidavit aforesaid, further states that as and when the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioners shall also be considered in the light of the final order.

In this view of the matter and the assurance given by Learned State Counsel, no further action is required to be taken in this contempt petition except that the respondent is directed that as and when the matter is decided by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, the claim of the petitioners, if any, shall also be considered as per the orders to be passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court,within three months of the date of passing of such an order.

Disposed of.

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.