Dismissed

Ramesh Dalal v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Punjab & Haryana HC8 Jul 2011CWP/11253/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This single-judge oral order dismissed a writ petition challenging a Section 144 Cr.P.C. direction. The court held the petition was infructuous because the impugned order had expired a month prior to the hearing and could no longer be operative, declining to decide on its validity or merits.

What did the court decide?

Petition dismissed as infructuous; no pronouncement on the validity of the expired order.

Ramesh Dalal Vs State of Haryana… — Civil Procedure and Limitation | Punjab & Haryana HC (2011)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶2

Civil Writ Petition No.11253 of 2011(O&M) Date of decision:08.07.2011

Ramesh Dalal

...Petitioner

versus

State of Haryana and another

¶7

....Respondents

¶8

CORAM: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE K. KANNAN

¶9

Present: Mr. Rajeshwar Singh Thakur, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶10

Ms. Kirti Singh, DAG, Haryana.

¶11

Whether reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No.

¶12

To be referred to the reporters or not ? No.

¶13

Whether the judgment should be reported in the digest ? No.

¶14

----

¶15

K.Kannan, J. (Oral)

¶16

The petitioner challenges the order passed under Section 144 Cr.P.C. which, according to the petitioner, is ex facie illegal, having been passed without following the mandate of law that requires the reasons to be given. The order has been passed on 08.06.2011 and as per the terms of the order, the period of one month has expired. The counsel for the State, therefore, contends that the petition has become infructuous.

¶17

The counsel for the petitioner points out that the order could be issued under Section 144 Cr.P.C. if only the magistrate finds that a

¶18

Civil Writ Petition No.11253 of 2011(O&M) - 2 -

¶19

direction in the manner given would prevent or tend to prevent an obstruction, annoyance or injury to any person lawfully employed or danger to human life, health or safety or a disturbance of the public tranquility or a right or an affray and could not be passed without recording a subjective satisfaction that the action of the petitioner imperils public tranquility or was likely to cause such danger or annoyance in the manner contemplated under the Section. The State has several reasons to give as to why the order was passed but at least I can notice that the order itself does not spell out such a basis. However, I am

¶20

not prepared to go into the merits of the case, having regard to the fact that the order was self-limiting in nature and it cannot any longer be operative. I merely record the fact that the impugned petitioner cannot by the very term under which it was passed, be operative from now on. 3. The petitioner further contends strenuously that it is a fundamental right of the petitioner which was infringed by the impugned order and the case cannot become infructuous and it would be required to be dealt with on merits. I would consider this request if the petitioner's liberty is in any manner infringed further by virtue of the said order. Any judgment shall not be academic to pronounce for what the law is, if the impugned order cannot cause any prejudice to him on the day when the judgment is rendered. The petitioner shall always be entitled to urge if ever there arises an occasion when his freedom is infringed otherwise than due course of law. If the petitioner is also in any way aggrieved about the curtailment of freedom and wants to make an issue on the basis that the order passed was wrong and that he is entitled for monetary

¶21

Civil Writ Petition No.11253 of 2011(O&M) - 3 -

¶22

reparation for a curtailment of his freedom, he shall be at liberty to do so by appropriate proceedings. I am not giving a pronouncement on the validity of the order as, in my view, the order has become infructuous. I have also observed that the petitioner's right shall not in any way be defeated for any civil action that the petitioner may contemplate.

¶23

The counsel for the State admits that no extension of the impugned order is contemplated. I record the said fact and hold that the effect of the order to have extinguished itself.

¶24

The petition is disposed of as above.

¶25

(K. KANNAN) JUDGE

¶26

08.07.2011 sanjeev

Ramesh Dalal v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ramesh Dalal v. State of Haryana & Anr.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mahesh Kumar Vs Pseb & Anr.

Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs Commissioner Jalandhar Division & Ors.

Priya Prashar Vs State of Punjab

Balwinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Darbara Singh Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Jagson Constructions Limited Vs State of Punjab and Ors.