Disposed

Ashok Kumar v. Anurag Rastogi, Commissioner and Director Gen. Sch. Edu. Hry.

Punjab & Haryana HC15 May 2009COCP/510/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench had directed the respondent to decide a pending legal notice. The High Court held that since the District Education Officer subsequently considered and rejected the notice via an order dated 11.5.2009, the current petition became infructuous. Consequently, the petition was stayed/disposed of.

What did the court decide?

Petition disposed off as infructuous on the fact that the respondent had already considered and rejected the petitioner's legal notice.

Ashok Kumar Vs Anurag Rastogi… — Education and Admissions | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P. No.510 of 2009 Date of Decision : May 15, 2009

Ashok Kumar

....Petitioner

Versus

Anurag Rastogi, Commissioner and Director, General School Education, Haryana

¶7

.....Respondent

¶8

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.P.S. MANN

¶9

Present : Mr. Nonish Kumar, Advocate

¶10

Ms. Kirti Singh, Assistant Advocate General, Haryana

¶11

T.P.S. MANN, J. (Oral)

¶12

On December 05,2008, while disposing of the writ petition filed by the petitioner, the Division bench directed the respondent to decide and dispose of the pending legal notice which had been submitted by the petitioner on 27.10.2008 on merits and in accordance with law within a period of four weeks from the date of receipt of a copy of the order.

¶13

According to the petitioner, the respondent did not take any action in pursuance to the order dated 5.12.2008 and, therefore, legal notice submitted by the petitioner remained undecided.

¶14

Upon issuance of notice, a short reply has been filed on behalf of the respondent today in the Court, which is taken on record. In

¶15

C.O.C.P. No.510 of 2009 -2-

¶16

para 2 of the same, it stands, mentioned that the case of the petitioner was thoroughly examined and it was revealed that the case pertained to the office of District Education Officer, Karnal. Accordingly, District Education Officer, Karnal was directed to take a decision on the legal notice submitted by the petitioner without delay. Pursuant thereto, District Education Officer, Karnal passed an order on 11.5.2009 whereby the legal notice submitted by the petitioner was considered and rejected. Copy of the order dated 11.5.2009 has been appended with the reply as Annexure R.1.

¶17

In view of the fact that the legal notice submitted by the petitioner has since been considered and disposed of by an order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure R.1), the present petition has been rendered infructuous and is, accordingly, disposed of. Rule is discharged.

¶18

In case, the petitioner is aggrieved by the order dated 11.5.2009 (Annexure R.1), he would be at liberty to challenge the same in accordance with law.

¶19

May 15, 2009 satish

¶20

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Ashok Kumar v. Anurag Rastogi, Commissioner and Director Gen. Sch. Edu. Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ashok Kumar v. Anurag Rastogi, Commissioner and Director Gen. Sch. Edu. Hry.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldip Singh and Ors. Vs Ram Gopal Chadha and Ors.

Gurnam Singh Vs Rajiv Kumar Batra and Anr.

Raj Kumar Vs N P S Aulakh and Anr.

Basant Kumar Vs Rakesh Kumar and Anr.

Kulwant Singh Vs Mohinder Singh Chahal and Ors.

Jaskaran Singh and Ors. Vs Megh Raj and Ors.