Remanded

Daya Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC25 Feb 2009CWP/2898/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

A public interest PIL filed under Article 226 seeking direction to authorities to take action against an official for irregularities in wheat distribution under PDS. The Court directed the respondents to examine the aggrieved reports and pass appropriate orders within two months.

What did the court decide?

Direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to examine the reports and pass appropriate orders within two months of receiving this order.

Daya Ram Vs State of Haryana… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2009)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

CWP No. 2898 of 2009 Date of Decision: 25.02.2009

Daya Ram

..Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and others

¶7

..Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE T.S.THAKUR,CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE HEMANT GUPTA

¶9

Present : Mr. Rajeev Godara, Advocate for the petitioner

¶10

¶11

T.S.Thakur, C.J. (Oral)

¶12

Issue notice of motion to respondents No.1 to 3 only in the first instance.

¶13

Mr. Rameshwar Malik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana accepts notice on behalf of the respondents. Keeping in view the order that we propose to make, service of notice upon respondent no.4 is dispensed with.

¶14

This petition filed in public interest simply prays for a direction against respondents No.2 and 3 to take action against respondent No.4 in view of the reports submitted by a committee headed by Naib Tehsildar and that submitted by Sub Divisional Officer (Civil), Sirsa, dated 8.10.2008 and 07.11.2008, respectively, pointing out certain irregularities allegedly committed by respondent No.4 in the distribution of wheat under the 'Public Distribution Scheme'. The petitioner's grievance appears to be

¶15

CWP No. 2898 of 2009

¶16

[2]

¶17

that although the said reports have been submitted to the higher officer viz. the District Food & Supply Controller, Sirsa-respondent No.3 the latter has not passed any order on the same so far.

¶18

Mr. Malik, learned Addl. Advocate General appearing for the respondents, however, submits that given two months time, the competent authority shall pass appropriate orders on the reports received by it under intimation to the petitioner.

¶19

In the circumstances, therefore, we consider it unnecessary to keep the present petition pending on our Board. The same can be disposed of with a direction to respondents No.1 to 3 to examine the reports dated 8.10.2008 and 07.11.2008 Annexures P-1 and P-2 at the appropriate level and pass appropriate orders in accordance with law under intimation to the petitioner. The needful shall be done by the said respondents within two months from the date a copy of the order is received by them.

¶20

With the above observation, the petition is disposed off. No

¶21

costs.

¶22

A copy of the order shall be given dasti to Mr. Malik, Addl. Advocate General, Haryana for compliance under the signature of the Bench Secretary.

¶23

(T.S.THAKUR) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶24

'ravinder'

¶25

(HEMANT GUPTA) JUDGE

¶26

25.02.2009

Daya Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Daya Ram v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Krishan Kumar Vs Commissioner of Customs, Rohtak and Anr.

M/S Twenty First Century Steels (P) Ltd. Vs Comm. Central Excise, Chandigarh

Narender Singh Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Universal Humn Rights Organisation Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Suresh Goel Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Hmt Ltd. Vs Haryana State Polluction Control Board & Ors.