Disposed

Gurjit Singh v. Megh Raj and Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC22 Apr 2009COCP/534/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this contempt petition arising from a writ regarding a railway crossing, the Single Judge dropped the proceedings. The court held the petitioner failed to disclose the crossing's closure and that the earlier order concerned a different crossing (No. C-5), not C-3.

What did the court decide?

Contempt proceedings dropped; petitioner at liberty to challenge closure of Crossing No. C-3 via proper compliance procedure.

Gurjit Singh Vs Megh Raj and Anr. — Contempt of Court | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

C.O.C.P. No. 534 of 2009

¶3

Date of Decision : April 22, 2009

Gurjit Singh

...Petitioner

Versus

Megh Raj and another

.....Respondents

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

¶10

Present : Mr. S.K.Arora, Advocate for the petitioner.

¶11

Mr. Jagdish Marwaha, Advocate for respondent No.2.

¶12

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

¶13

Writ petition filed by one Ajit Singh challenging the closing of unmanned Railway Crossing came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on September 26, 2008 when learned counsel representing the Railway Administration made a statement that it had decided not to close the unmanned Railway Crossings but to make them manned Crossings.

¶14

Lateron, the petitioner who was using crossing No. C-3 for access to his land, filed a writ bearing CWP No. 21053 of 2008, which came up for hearing before a Division Bench of this Court on December 16, 2008 but was dismissed as being not maintainable in view of the order passed by the Court earlier on 26.9.2008. Armed with the order dated 16.12.2008, the petitioner

¶15

C.O.C.P. No. 534 of 2009 -2-

¶16

filed an application Annexure P-3 to the respondents with a prayer that Railway Crossing No.C-3 situated at Ferozepur-Fazilka Railway line in village Suba Qadim be reopened. As his request was not acceded to, the petitioner filed the present contempt petition against the respondents in which notice was issued to respondent No.2 only.

¶17

Learned counsel representing respondent No.2 states that Railway Crossing No. C-3 already stood closed on 24.7.2008 and while filing the writ, the petitioner did not disclose the said fact and just relied upon the order dated 26.9.2008.

¶18

Learned counsel for the petitioner states that as the Railway Administration had already made a statement before a Division Bench of this Court on 26.9.2008 that it would not close any unmanned Railway Crossings but to make them manned crossings, the Railway Administration was required to reopen Railway Crossing No. C-3 which stood closed.

¶19

Learned counsel for respondent No.2 states that he had made a statement on behalf of the Railway Administration before the Division Bench of this Court on 26.9.2008 in respect of Railway Crossing No. C-5 only and not regarding all the unmanned Railway Crossings.

¶20

It is not in dispute that Railway Crossing No. C-3 already stood closed before the filing of the writ by the petitioner. Under these circumstances, the petitioner was required to apprise this Court that Railway Crossing No. C-3 already stood closed and then prayed for reopening the same but he did not do so. Moreover, order dated 26.9.2008 passed in the writ petition of one Ajit

¶21

C.O.C.P. No. 534 of 2009 -3-

¶22

Singh pertained to Railway Crossing No. C-5 and not other unmanned Crossings including C-3.

¶23

In view of the above, the contempt proceedings are dropped.

¶24

The petitioner would, however, be at liberty to challenge the closure of Railway Crossing No.C-3 in accordance with law, if so advised.

¶25

April 22, 2009 ajay-1

¶26

( T.P.S. MANN ) JUDGE

Gurjit Singh v. Megh Raj and Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gurjit Singh v. Megh Raj and Anr.

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

Chanchal Rani Vs Rameshinder Singh & Anor.

Subhash Chander Vs Anil Rao and Anr,.

Jyoti Oberoi Vs Ajit M Sharan

Ram Kumar Goel Vs Rajan Kumar Gupta and Anr.

Vedpal Vs Om Chander and Ors.

Darshan Ram @ Darshan Singh Vs Neelima Shangla