Dismissed

Surender Chopra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC18 Aug 2010CWP/11739/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This short order disposed of three connected writ petitions. Upon a statement that petitioners were adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration and not sent to the Corporation, the court found the petitions infructuous and dismissed them.

What did the court decide?

The petitions were disposed of as they were rendered infructuous by the undertaking to place petitioners in the Chandigarh Administration.

Surender Chopra & Ors. Vs Union of India… — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

C.W.P. No. 11738-CAT of 2010 -1-

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

C.W.P. No. 11738-CAT of 2010 Date of Decision 18.08.2010

¶4

Santosh Rani and others -----Petitioners

¶5

Versus

¶6

Union of India and others ---Respondents

¶7

C.W.P. No. 11739-CAT of 2010

¶8

Surender Chopra and others -----Petitioners

¶9

Versus

¶10

Union of India and others ---Respondents

¶11

C.W.P. No. 11740-CAT of 2010

¶12

Manpreet Kaur and others

¶13

-----Petitioners

¶14

Versus

¶15

Union of India and others ---Respondents

¶16

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE RITU BAHRI

¶17

Present: Mr. Gurminder Singh, Advocate for the petitioners.

¶18

Ms. Nimrata Shergill, Advocate for respondent Nos. 2, 3 & 4.

¶19

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶20

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶21

M.M. KUMAR, J.

¶22

This order shall dispose of three writ petitions bearing Nos. 11738, 11739 and 11740-CAT of 2010 as all the writ petitions have emerged from a common judgment dated 18.02.2010 passed by the learned Central Administrative Tribunal, Chandigarh Bench (for brevity 'the Tribunal').

¶23

On 20.07.2010, a statement was made on behalf of respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 to the effect that on account of option

¶24

C.W.P. No. 11738-CAT of 2010 -2-

¶25

notice published in The Tribune dated 09.07.2010, all the petitioners were adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration. On that date, learned counsel for the petitioners has sought time to seek instructions. After obtaining instructions, he states that the petitioners shall be satisfied, if they are adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration and not sent to the Corporation. The aforesaid statement made on 20.07.2010 has been reiterated by Ms. Nimrata Shergill, learned counsel for the respondents No. 2, 3 and 4 and she states that the petitioners shall be adjusted in the Chandigarh Administration and shall not be sent to the Corporation.

¶26

In view of the above, the instant petition has been rendered infructuous and is disposed of as such.

¶27

A photocopy of this order be placed on the file of

¶28

connected cases.

¶29

(M.M. KUMAR) JUDGE

¶30

(RITU BAHRI) JUDGE

¶31

August 18, 2010 Atul

Surender Chopra & Ors. v. Union of India & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Chopra & Ors. v. Union of India & 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

Union of India & Another Vs Rampyari and Anr.

Santokh Singh Vs Presiding Officer and Anr.

State of Haryana and Ors. Vs Umesh Devi

Santosh Rani & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Manpreet Kaur & Ors. Vs Union of India & Ors.

Karamjit Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.