Partly allowed

Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Punjab & Haryana HC28 May 2012CWP/10902/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In this writ petition, the petitioner sought direction to afford him an opportunity of hearing as the order was passed without notice. The High Court remitted the matter to the Deputy Commissioner for a fresh hearing, limited the petitioner to two appearances, set aside the impugned order, and awarded costs.

What did the court decide?

Remitted to Deputy Commissioner for fresh hearing; impugned order set aside; costs of Rs. 5,000 awarded.

Surender Kumar Vs State of Haryana & Ors. — Land Acquisition | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No.10902 of 2011 (O&M) 1

¶2

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶3

CWP No.10902 of 2011 (O&M) Decided on : 28-05-2012

Surender Kumar

....Petitioner

VERSUS

State of Haryana and others

¶8

....Respondents

¶9

CORAM:- HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MAHESH GROVER

¶10

Present:Mr. Raj Kapoor Malik, for the petitioner

¶11

Ms. Sushma Chopra, Addl.AG, Haryana

¶12

MAHESH GROVER, J

¶13

The only grievance raised in the instant petition is that the order under appeal was passed without hearing the petitioner.

¶14

It is contended that on the relevant date when the appeal was fixed for hearing, counsel for the petitioner could not appear resulting in the passing of the impugned order. Learned counsel for the petitioner confines his prayer only to the limited extent that he be given opportunity to represent his case.

¶15

Keeping in view the facts of the case although there is no plausible ground which could explain the absence of the petitioner before the Appellate Authority yet considering the controversy and keeping in view the interest of justice, the instant petition is disposed of with following directions:-

¶16

i) that the matter is remitted back to the Deputy Commissioner, Kaithal to reconsider the case of the petitioner afresh by affording him an opportunity of hearing.

¶17

CWP No.10902 of 2011 (O&M) 2

¶18

ii)that the petitioner either himself or through his counsel shall appear before the Deputy Commissioner on 15.6.2012 and thereafter, the matter shall be heard afresh.

¶19

iii)that under no circumstances, the petitioner shall be granted more than two opportunities which will also include the one on which date he puts his appearance before the Deputy Commissioner as noted in the above part of the order.

¶20

In the given set of circumstances, the instant writ petition is

¶21

disposed of in above terms and impugned order dated 23.11.2010 is set aside however, subject to payment of Rs.5,000/- as costs which shall be deposited before the Legal Services Authority, Haryana.

¶22

May 28, 2012 (Mahesh Grover) rekha Judge

Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana & Ors.

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surender Kumar v. State of Haryana & 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

Tania @ Arshdeep Kaur Vs Motor Accident Claims Tribunal, Panchkula & Ors.

Navneet Kumar Vs Punjab State Power Corpn.Ltd. & Ors.

M/S Mann Cooperative Labour & Construction Soc. Ltd. Vs State of Punjab & Ors.

Monica and Anr. Vs Ut of Chandigarh and Ors.

Savitri Devi etc. Vs Uttar Haryana Bijli Vitran Nigam etc.

Kehar Singh Rana Vs State of Haryana and Ros.