The single-judge court disposed of a writ petition challenging the vagueness of a show cause notice (Annexure P-6). The court quashed the notice and directed the state to issue a specific notice with sufficient time for reply.
Annexure P-6 is quashed; status-quo maintained; respondent to issue specific show cause notice with time for reply.
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 & HARYANA, CHANDIGARH
Civil Writ Petition No.20683 of 2008 Date of Decision: August 06, 2010
Kulwinder Singh State of Punjab & Others
VERSUS
.....PETITIONER(S)
.....RESPONDENT(S)
. . .
CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AJAI LAMBA
PRESENT: - Mr. Girish Agnihotri, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Vijay Pal, Advocate, for the petitioner(s). Ms. Charu Tuli, Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab, for the respondents.
. . .
AJAI LAMBA, J (Oral)
9.12.2008, the following order was passed:-
“Learned counsel for the petitioner inter alia contends that the show cause notice Annexure P6 is absolutely vague as it does not disclose as to what petitioner has to show cause against.
Learned counsel further submits that in the absence of any reasons spelt out in the show cause notice, the petitioner is prejudiced in filing any effective reply.
Notice of motion to the respondents for 16.12.2008.
Notice re: stay also.”
CWP No.20683 of 2008 [2]
State contends that a specific show cause notice would be issued to the petitioner whereby the petitioner would be given time and liberty to file his response.
(AJAI LAMBA)
August 06, 2010 JUDGE avin
Kulwinder Singh
State of Punjab
AJAI LAMBA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
