Petitioner's writ petition disposed of in consonance with order dated 4.2.2011 in connected CWP No.2167 of 2011, directing party appearance before State Information Commission.
Petition disposed of in terms of order dated 4.2.2011 in CWP No.2167 of 2011; parties directed to appear before State Information Commission on 7.3.2011.
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
CWP No.14184 of 2010
Date of Decision:-7.2.2011
Mrs.Surjit Kaur w/o S.Narinderpal Singh
...Petitioner
Versus
State Information Commission and others
...Respondents
CORAM: HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE MEHINDER SINGH SULLAR
Present:Mr.Sameer Sachdeva, Advocate for the petitioner.
Mr.Sartaj Singh Gill, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for the respondents.
Mehinder Singh Sullar, J. (Oral)
The learned counsel for the parties are ad idem that the present writ petition has to be disposed of in terms of the order dated 4.2.2011 rendered by this Court in CWP No.2167 of 2011 titled as “Jagjit Singh Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others”, arising out of the same subject matter.
In this view of the conceded position, the instant writ petition is disposed of in the same terms of order dated 4.2.2011 passed in CWP No.2167 of 2011.
The parties through their counsel are directed to appear before the State Information Commission, Punjab on 7.3.2011.
(Mehinder Singh Sullar) Judge
7.2.2011 AS
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Jagjit Singh Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and othersReferred¶13
CWP No.2167 of 2011 titled as Jagjit Singh Vs. State Information Commission, Punjab and others
Mrs. Surjit Kaur w/o S.Narinderpal Singh
State Information Commission
Mehinder Singh Sullar
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
