Dismissed

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC16 Jul 2010LPA/813/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench dismissed the Letters Patent Appeals filed against an agreed order of a Single Judge. The court held that such appeals are not maintainable against orders passed by consent, as they lack merit.

What did the court decide?

The appeals against the single Judge's agreed order were dismissed; applications for condonation of delay and re-filing were also dismissed.

Rakesh Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors. — Writ and Judicial Review | Punjab & Haryana HC (2010)

¶1

-1-

¶2

LPA No. 813 of 2010

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

LPA No. 813 of 2010 Date of Decision 16.07.2010

¶5

Rakesh Kumar -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents LPA No. 814 of 2010 Ram Babu -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents LPA No. 815 of 2010 Krishan Kumar -----Appellant Versus State of Haryana and others ---Respondents

¶6

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. KUMAR HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE A.N. JINDAL

¶7

Present: Mr. Jasmer Singh, Advocate for Mr. Surya Kant Gautam, Advocate for the appellant.

¶8

To be referred to the Reporters or not?

¶9

Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest?

¶10

M.M. Kumar, J.

¶11

The instant appeal filed under Clause X of the Letters Patent is directed against the judgment dated 05.08.2009 passed by the learned Single Judge in C.W.P. No. 2196 of 2009. The learned Single Judge has recorded in unequivocal terms that the agreement of the parties, which is evident from the short order and the same reads thus:

¶12

“The counsel for the parties are in agreement that similar challenge was raised in some writ petitions, including Civil Writ Petition No. 7911 of 2007, which were

¶13

LPA No. 813 of 2010

¶14

-2-

¶15

disposed of vide orders Annexure R-1 and R-2. The Division Bench of this Court, while deciding those petitions, have upheld the advertisement and also the right of some persons for being considered for appointment to the posts of Canal Patwaris, who are the petitioners therein. The counsel for the parties agree that the present writ petition can also be disposed of in the same terms. Ordered accordingly.”

¶16

It is evident that the learned Single Judge has passed agreed order based on the Division Bench judgment of this Court rendered in C.W.P. No. 7911 of 2007. We fail to understand how a Letters Patent Appeal under Clause X would be maintainable against an agreed order based on the consent of the parties. There is, thus, no merit in the appeal.

¶17

Accordingly, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

¶18

In view of the dismissal of the appeal, both applications seeking condonation of delay in filing and re-filing the appeal are also dismissed.

¶19

A photocopy of this order be placed on the files of connected cases.

¶20

(M.M. KUMAR)

¶21

JUDGE

¶22

(A.N. JINDAL) JUDGE

¶23

July 16, 2010 Atul

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana and Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rakesh Kumar v. State of Haryana 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

Union of India and Others Vs Kulwinder Singh

H.S.I.D.C Ltd. Vs Presiding Officer, Industrial Tribunal Cum Labour Court, Panipat and Another

Santosh Yadav Vs State of Haryana and Ors.

Krishan Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Gd Trimohan Vs Union of India and Ors.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Haryana and Ors.