A contempt petition was dismissed as infructuous after it emerged that the respondent had subsequently passed a speaking order deciding the petitioner's earlier representations.
Petition dismissed as infructuous; Rule discharged.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
C.O.C.P. No. 1880 of 2008 Date of Decision : April 15, 2009
Harsharan Singh
....Petitioner
Versus
Sudhanshu S. Srivastva
.....Respondent
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN
Present : None for the petitioner.
Mr. Kapil Kakkar, Additional Standing Counsel for the respondent.
T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)
A petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C. filed by the petitioner was disposed of by this court on 1.5.2008 with a direction to the respondent to look into the representations attached as annexures P-3 and P-4 therein submitted by the petitioner and to decide the same by passing a speaking order within a period of one month.
Accordingly to the petitioner, no action had been taken by the respondent on his aforementioned representations, which necessitated the filing of present contempt petition.
Reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent today in the Court, which is taken on record.
C.O.C.P. No. 1880 of 2008 -2-
A perusal of the same would reveal that the representations (attached as annexures P-3 and P-4 with the petition under Section 482 Cr.P.C.) have since been decided by the respondent by passing an order dated 9.4.2009, copy of which has been attached as annexure R-1 with the reply.
In view of the above, the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, dismissed. Rule is discharged.
April 15, 2009 ajay-1
( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE
Harsharan Singh
Sudhanshu S. Srivastva
T.P.S. MANN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
