Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAM PARKASH SHARMA & ORS versus THE HOUSING BOARD HARYANA & ANR

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Ram Parkash Sharma & Ors v. The Housing Board Haryana & Anr - CWP-11602-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 4947 (28 July 2006)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

CWP NO.11602 of 2006

DATE OF DECISION:July 31, 2006

Ram Parkash Sharma and others

....Petitioners

VERSUS

The Housing Board Haryana and another

.....Respondents

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

PRESENT: Shri Amarjeet Markan, Advocate for the petitioners.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral).

Notice of motion to the respodnetns.

On the asking of Court, Shri Ashok Jindal, Additional Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respdoentns and prays for time to seek instructions and to file written statement, if required.

Copies of the writ petition have been supplied to the learned counsel for the respondents.

The petitioners have approached this Court making a grievance against the orders dated March 8,2006 (Annexure P.5) and the communication dated January 12, 2006 (Annexure P.5/A). It has been claimed by the petitioners that they were similarly situated as petitioners in CWP No.10462 of 1988 which was decided by a Division Bench of this Court dated Feburary 3, 2000 (Jan Kalyan Samiti vs. The Housing Board Haryana and others).

The grievance of the petitioners is that although they had filed representations for the similar relief which had been granted to the petitioners in CWP No.10462 of 1988 but the respodnetns through the aforesaid communications (Annexures P.5 and P.5/A) have rejected the said claim by mentioning that the relief was to be confined only such persons who had approached the Court.

After taking into cosndieration the observations made in the communications (Annexures P.5 and P.5/A), we are satisfied that thea foresaid stand taken by the respodnetns cannot be justitified.

Once the petitioners are similarly situated as petitioners in CWP No.10462 of 1988, then they were also entitled to the similar reliefs as had been granted by this Court to the said petitioners.

Consequently, we dispose of the present petition with a liberty to the petitioners to file an individual detailed and comprehensive representations (in a representative capacity) by annexing all the relevant documents.

(Viney Mittal)

Judge

July 31, 2006 (H.S. Bhalla)

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.