Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJEEV SHARMA versus UNION OF INDIA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Rajeev Sharma v. Union of India & Ors - CWP-1768-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 1564 (9 March 2006)

C.M. Nos. 18165 of 2004, 20726 of 2005, 4704-05 of 2006 and C.W.P. No. 1768 of 1993 (O&M) [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH.

C.M. Nos. 18165 of 2004, 20726 of 2005,

4704-05 of 2006 and

C.W.P. No. 1768 of 2003 (O&M)

Date of Decision: March 20, 2006

Rajeev Sharma

.....Petitioner

Vs.

Union of India and others

.....Respondents

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL.
Present:- Mr. R.N. Raina, Advocate

for the petitioner.

Mr. R.S. Rai, Advocate, for the respondents.

-.-

VINEY MITTAL, J. (ORAL)

The prayer made in the applications is allowed. Judgments annexures P-13 and P-14 passed by Delhi High Court are taken on record.

The prayer made in the applications is to dispose of the main writ petition as according to the learned counsel for the applicant- petitioner, the matter is squarely covered by a judgment rendered by Delhi High Court in the case of W.P.(C) No. 6372 of 2003, decided on May 31,2005, S.K.Rahi Vs. Bureau of Indian Standards, (annexure P-13). It has further been stated in the application that the aforesaid judgment of the learned Single Judge has been upheld by a C.M. Nos. 18165 of 2004, 20726 of 2005, 4704-05 of 2006 and C.W.P. No. 1768 of 1993 (O&M) [2]

Division Bench of Delhi High Court in L.P.A. Nos. 1682-84 and 1689 of 2005, decided on February 6, 2006.

Notice of the applications to the learned counsel for the non- applicants.

Mr. R.S. Rai, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants accepts notice.

From the perusal of the judgments Annexure P-13 and P-14, it is apparent that the controversy in question is squarely covered by the aforesaid judgements rendered by Delhi High Court. In fact, the learned counsel appearing for the non-applicants has not been able to point out any point of distinction between the controversy involved in the present writ petition and the decision rendered by Delhi High Court in the aforesaid judgments.

Consequently, the main writ petition itself is disposed of in the same terms as in W.P.(C) No. 6372 of 2003, decided on May 31,2005, S.K.Rahi Vs.

Bureau of Indian Standards, (annexure P-13).

C.M. as well as the main writ petition stand disposed of.

March 20, 2006 (VINEY MITTAL)

sanjay 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.