Over 2 lakh Indian cases. Search powered by Google!

Case Details

RAJ KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA & ORS

High Court of Punjab and Haryana, Chandigarh

Case Law Search

Indian Supreme Court Cases / Judgements / Legislation

Judgement


Raj Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors - CWP-7976-2003 [2006] RD-P&H 6277 (31 August 2006)

C.W.P. No.7976 of 2003

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA,CHANDIGARH.

C.W.P. No.7976 of 2003

Date of decision: August 29, 2006

Raj Kumar V. State of Haryana and others CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE VINEY MITTAL
HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE H.S.BHALLA

Present: Mr. Shri Amarjit Singh, Advocate, for the petitioner.

Shri Harish Rathee,Senior Deputy Advocate General Haryana or the respondents.

Viney Mittal,J.(Oral

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.

We are of the opinion that the order ,Annexure P10, appears to be clearly in contravention to the observations made by the Division Bench of this Court in Civil Writ Petition No.441 of 1999 disposed of on May 28,2002 by passing the following order : "We have perused the record of C.W.P. No.685 of 1997 Om Parkash V.State of Haryana and others decided on January 16,2001. The issues raised in the present writ petition are identical with the issues which have been settled vide aforesaid decision by this Court. This petition is accordingly disposed of in terms of the decision in the aforesaid writ petition and same relief shall be granted to the present petitioners."

C.W.P. No.7976 of 2003

In the order Annexure P10, the Executive Engineer, Sonepat Water Services Division,Sonepat has opined that the judgment of the Division Bench in Civil Writ Petition No.17862 of 1997 was not applicable to the facts of the present case. We are clearly of the opinion that it was not open to the Executive Engineer to give a finding which was clearly contrary to the fore-noted express directions of this Court.

We, accordingly, allow the writ petition and quash the order, Annexure P10 but give liberty to the respondents to seek a clarification/review from this Court, if so desired, with respect to the order dated May 28,2002 in Civil Writ Petition No.441 of 1999.

(Viney Mittal )

Judge

August 29,2006 ( H.S.Bhalla )

sks 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.