Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

SUDHIR KUMAR RISHI versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Sudhir Kumar Rishi v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-9527-2006 [2006] RD-P&H 5803 (22 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 9527 OF 2006 1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 9527 OF 2006

Date of decision : August 8, 2006

* * * * *

Sudhir Kumar Rishi ............Petitioner Vs.

State of Haryana & others ...........Respondents * * * * *

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

Present: Ms. Alka Chatrath, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Sukhdip Singh Brar, Additional Advocate General, Punjab for respondents no. 1 & 2.

Mr. T.S Dhindsa, Advocate for respondent no.3.

Mr. Akshay Bhan, Advocate for respondent no.4.

Mr. M.K Singla, Advocate for respondent no.5.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

A short reply on behalf of respondent no.1 has been filed in the Court today. Along with the reply, a copy of the order dated August 4, 2006 passed by the Principal Secretary, Medical Education and Research, Punjab has been appended as Annexure R-1.

A decision has been taken by respondent no.1 to create one additional seat on humane considerations. Operative part of order dated C.W.P NO. 9527 OF 2006 2

August 4, 2006 reads as under:

"In view of the above facts, the candidate has no legal right to claim change of the seat, yet due to clarificatory order at the later stage, the petitioner has obviously lost a chance for admission which can, however, on humane consideration, be considered and compensated by allowing one extra seat in the management quota during the current session with the condition that the same (one seat) shall be reduced from the seats allotted for the next session under the management quota."

The relief granted to the petitioner vide order dated August 4, 2006 fully satisfied the counsel for the petitioner.

The present petition is consequently disposed of as having been rendered infructuous.

However, we direct the respondents to comply with the order dated August 4, 2006 within a period of 4 weeks from today. However, the disposal of the writ petition and the directions issued by this Court would not affect the rights of any of the parties to the petition to challenge the order dated August 4, 2006 in accordance with law.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

August 8, 2006 ( H.S BHALLA )

ritu 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.