Dharam Singh Vs the State of Hp and Others

_____________________________________________________ For the petitioner : Mr. S.D. Gill, Advocate. For the respondents : Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, Additional Advocate General for respondents No. 1 to 5. Ajay Mohan Goel, Judge (Oral)

¶11

Notice confined respondents No. 1 to 5. Mr. Pushpender Jaswal, learned Additional Advocate General, accepts notice on behalf of respondents No. 1 to 5.

¶12

By way of this writ petition, the petitioner has prayed for the following relief:-

¶13

“a) That the writ in the nature of mandamus may kindly be issued, thereby directing the respondents No. 1 to 5 to take action against Respondent No.6 & 7 who in conspiracy with each other misuse the public funds and emblazed the fund which are otherwise to be given to the person who actually in need, therefore, directions may also kindly be passed to the effect that the matter may kindly be investigated through an

¶14

1 Whether reporters of the local papers may be allowed to see the judgment?

¶15

2

¶16

2025:HHC:30587

¶17

independent agency by visiting the spot and accordingly action may kindly be ordered to be taken against the Respondent No.6& 7 and penalize them and justice be done.”

¶18

After making his submissions for some time, learned Counsel for the petitioner submits that interest of justice would be served, in case, the petitioner is allowed to withdraw this petition, with liberty to the petitioner to approach the Statutory Authority under the Panchayati Raj Act with regard to the grievance raised in this petition and it be observed that in the event of the petitioner approaching the Authority, let the Authority take a call thereupon within some time bound period.

¶19

In the light of the submissions made by learned Counsel for the petitioner, the petition is permitted to be withdrawn, with liberty as prayed for. In the event of the petitioner filing any complaint under the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act within a period of four weeks from today, let the authority deal with it in accordance with the provisions of the Panchayati Raj Act as expeditiously as possible.

¶20

It is observed that this Court has not made any observations with regard to the credibility of the contentions that have been raised by the petitioner in this petition. If any complaint is filed by the petitioner, the same be dispassionately considered and taken to its logical conclusion by the Authority, in accordance with law. Pending miscellaneous applications, if any, also stand disposed

¶21

3

¶22

2025:HHC:30587

¶23

of accordingly. (Ajay Mohan Goel) Judge September 08, 2025 ( narender )

Dharam Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Dharam Singh v. the State of Hp and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Kumar Gupta Vs State of Hp

Vidhya Sagar and Ors. Vs Rakesh Kanwar and Ors.

Toju Vs Mohan Kalta

Rajesh Kalia Vs District Collector and Anr.

Salita Devi Vs Parveen Kumar

Hari Krishan Vs Devinder Kumar