Disposed

Resurgence India and Others v. State of Punjab & Others

Punjab & Haryana HC26 Jul 2010CWP/12993/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

CWP challenging road construction inadequacy and alleged fund malfeasance. Court held direct approach to Writ Court was incorrect, directing Principal Secretary to dispose of representation within eight weeks. Provided for police security against threats.

What did the court decide?

Direction to Principal Secretary to dispose of representation by reasoned order within eight weeks; provision for police security against threats.

Resurgence India and Others Vs State of… — Service and Employment | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

CWP No. 12993 of 2010

¶2

[1]

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 12993 of 2010 Date of Decision: 26.7.2010

¶5

Resurgence India & others

¶6

..Petitioners

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

..Respondents

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MUKUL MUDGAL, CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAY TEWARI

¶11

1.Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ?

¶12

Whether to be referred to the Reporters or not ?

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶14

Present : Mr. APS Shergill, Advocate, for the petitioners.

¶15

¶16

MUKUL MUDGAL, C.J. (Oral)

¶17

Petitioner has filed this Public Interest Litigation seeking to highlight the inadequacy of the construction of the roads and malfeasance in respect of the funds to be expanded for construction of roads. It has been averred in the writ petition by the petitioners that they have brought the issues raised in this petition to the notice of the respondents time and again. Learned counsel for the petitioners has particularly laid stress on representation dated 9.7.2010 addressed to the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh, which is annexed with this writ petition as Annexure P-22.

¶18

After hearing learned counsel for the petitioners, we are of the view that representation Annexure P-22 dated 9.7.2010, though made recently, is nevertheless repetition of the grievances voiced in earlier representations sent to the respondents. The direct approach in the matter of this nature to the Writ Court is not the correct course of

¶19

CWP No. 12993 of 2010

¶20

[2]

¶21

action and the appropriate course would be to direct the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh to dispose of the said representation within a stipulated period by a reasoned order.

¶22

Accordingly, we dispose of this writ petition with a direction to the Principal Secretary, Government of Punjab, Department of Local Government, Punjab Civil Secretariat, Chandigarh i.e. respondent No.2 to dispose of the representation dated 9.7.2010 (Annexure P-22) by a reasoned order not later than eight weeks from the date of receipt a copy of this order. In case, the petitioners are aggrieved by the order passed by respondent No.2, it will be open for them to agitate their grievances according to law.

¶23

It is further directed that in case there is any threat perception to the life and liberty of the petitioners, namely, (i) Hitender Jain (ii) Kuldeep Singh and (iii) Hemant Goswami, it will be open for them to seek security from the police and it will be provided to them as the circumstances of the case warrant.

¶24

(MUKUL MUDGAL) CHIEF JUSTICE

¶25

(AJAY TEWARI) 26.07.2010 JUDGE 'ravinder'

Resurgence India and Others v. State of Punjab & Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Resurgence India and Others v. State of Punjab & Others

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

Krishan Lal Vs Ranbir Singh

Mukesh Kumar and Others Vs Kamla Alias Rita

Hari Singh Vs State of Haryana

Reshma & Anr. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Man Singh Vs State of Haryana

Harjit Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab