Disposed

Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC4 Aug 2010CWP/11820/2002

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Single Judge bench disposed of a writ petition by certiorari seeking to quash a transfer order against a doctor. Noting that eight years had passed since the transfer order and an interim order allowing the petitioner to remain at the original station, the court held that the petition had outlived its usefulness and disposed of the matter.

What did the court decide?

The petition was disposed of on the grounds that it had outlived its life after an efflux of eight years.

Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon Vs State of Punjab… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT

¶2

CHANDIGARH.

¶3

Civil Writ Petition No.11820 of 2002 (O&M)

¶4

DATE OF DECISION : AUGUST 4, 2010

¶5

DR. SHIV KARAN SINGH KAHLON

¶6

....... PETITIONER(S)

¶7

VERSUS

¶8

THE STATE OF PUNJAB & ORS.

¶9

.... RESPONDENT(S)

¶10

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA

¶11

PRESENT: Mr. Rajiv Atma Ram, Sr.Advocate, with Mr. Vikas Kuthuiala, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Mr. BS Chahal, DAG, Punjab.

¶12

AJAI LAMBA, J. (Oral)

¶13

With the consent of the learned counsel for the parties, the main petition is taken up for hearing today itself.

¶14

This petition under Article 226 of the Constitution of India has been filed praying for issuance of a writ in the nature of certiorari quashing order dated 24.7.2002 (Annexure P-5). The effect of order (Annexure P-5) is that petitioner-Dr.Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon has been transferred.

¶15

When the matter was initially heard on 31.7.2002, interim direction was issued that the petitioner would be allowed to remain at Amritsar.

¶16

Civil Writ Petition No.11820 of 2002 (O&M)

¶17

¶18

Learned counsel for the respondent-State contends that eight years have passed. The order of transfer does not adversely affect the service conditions of the petitioner. The Government has also changed and, therefore, the allegation of malafide is also rendered dehors the controversy.

¶19

I have considered the issue.

¶20

The petitioner has taken the benefit of interim order passed on 31.7.2002 till date. Ordinarily, transfer is effected after three years of stay at a particular station. Admittedly, the transfer of the petitioner would not change the conditions of service of the petitioner. There is no allegation that the order of transfer has been passed by an authority not competent to do so.

¶21

In view of the efflux of time, in my considered opinion, this petition has outlived its life.

¶22

The petition is, accordingly, disposed of. August 4, 2010 ( AJAI LAMBA ) Kang JUDGE

¶23

To be referred to the Reporters or not? Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shiv Karan Singh Kahlon v. State of Punjab and Ors.

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

Jaswant Singh Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Subhash Chander Batra Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Karamjit Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Neetu Chhabra Vs Harpreet Singh Garcha etc.

Parkash Chand and Another Vs State of Punjab and Another

Sarabjit Singh Khokhar & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.