Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

KANWALPREET SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB & ANR.

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Kanwalpreet Singh v. State of Punjab & anr. - CWP-16728-2004 [2006] RD-P&H 5869 (24 August 2006)

C.W.P NO. 16728 OF 2004 [1]

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

* * * * *

C.W.P NO. 16728 OF 2004

Date of decision : July 20, 2006

* * * * *

Kanwalpreet Singh ............Petitioner Vs.

State of Punjab & anr. ...........Respondents * * * * *

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

Present: Mr. M.L Sarin, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Sahil Sharma, Advocate for the petitioner(s).

Mr. Pradeep Bhandari, Advocate for the respondents.

* * * * *

Viney Mittal, J. (Oral)

The petitioner has challenged the order dated March 29, 2004 passed by the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana.

It appears from the record that the petitioner had participated in an auction and was declared the highest bidder. However the possession of the aforesaid plot was not handed over to the petitioner. Accordingly, the petitioner approached this Court through CWP No.3177 of 2004. The aforesaid writ petition was disposed of vide a Division Bench judgement of this Court with directions to the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to consider the claim of the petitioner and pass a detailed and speaking order. In C.W.P NO. 16728 OF 2004 [2]

pursuance to the aforesaid directions, the impugned order dated March 29, 2004 (Annexure P-4) has been passed.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have also gone through the record of the case. In our considered view, the order Annexure P-4 does not contain any reasons whatsoever and cannot be treated to be a speaking order in terms of the directions passed in CWP No.3177 of 2004.

In these circumstances, without going into the merits of the controversy at all, we dispose of the present petition and quash the order dated March 29, 2004 with a direction to the Improvement Trust, Ludhiana to pass a fresh speaking order on the claim made by the petitioner after affording an opportunity of hearing to the petitioner within a period of 4 months from the date a certified copy of this order is received.

Copy of the order be given dasti on payment of the usual charges.

( VINEY MITTAL )

JUDGE

July 20, 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.