In a public interest litigation where the petitioner had failed to place further material after seeking an adjournment over four years, the Court observed that the petitioner was no longer interested in pursuing the matter and dismissed the petition.
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.10312 of 2008 (O&M) DATE OF DECISION: October 04, 2012
Matu Ram Mittal
…..Petitioner
versus
Union of India and others
.....Respondents
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE A.K. SIKRI, CHIEF JUSTICE HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN, JUDGE
Present: Mr.R.S. Sodhi, Advocate for the petitioner
A.K. SIKRI, C.J. : (Oral)
On May 30, 2008, counsel for the petitioner had sought adjournment to enable him to place further material on record. Till date, needful is not done. This is a public interest litigation. From the aforesaid, it is clear that the petitioner is not interested in pursuing the present petition.
Dismissed.
( A.K. SIKRI ) CHIEF JUSTICE
October 04, 2012 (RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) pc JUDGE
Matu Ram Mittal
Union of India
A.K. SIKRI
RAKESH KUMAR JAIN
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
