This court dismissed the writ petition as no case for interference was made out under the writ jurisdiction, noting the petitioner's alternative remedy via Supreme Court direction.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No. 13796 of 2009 Date of decision : 03.08.2010
Varun Malik
.....Petitioner
VERSUS
Union Territory, Chandigarh and others ....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE RANJIT SINGH
Present: Mr. Sourabh Goel, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr. Karan Bhardwaj, Advocate for Mr. Sanjay Kaushal, Advocate for respondent No.1.
Mr. Anupam Gupta, Advocate for respondent No. 2.
RANJIT SINGH, J.
The petitioner may have his alternative remedy in case
any direction issued by the Hon'ble Supreme Court is not being followed. No case for interference in the writ jurisdiction is made out.
Dismissed.
August 03, 2010 rts
( RANJIT SINGH ) JUDGE
Varun Malik
Union Territory, Chandigarh
Ranjit Singh
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
