Disposed

Tanvir Hussain v. State of Punjab and Others

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2012CWP/11766/2012

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a writ petition challenging the sale of public health department land by Municipal Council Banur, the High Court noted that a criminal inquiry was pending. Consequently, it directed authorities to conclude the inquiry within two months and examine a specific report before forming an opinion on merits.

What did the court decide?

Directed the inquiry agency to conclude the pending inquiry within two months and examine the ADM report before forming an opinion on merits.

Tanvir Hussain Vs State of Pun… — Constitutional and Fundamental Rights | Punjab & Haryana HC (2012)

¶1

CWP No. 11766 of 2012

¶2

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CWP No. 11766 of 2012 Date of decision:- 17.09.2012

¶5

Tanvir Hussain

¶6

...... Petitioner

¶7

¶8

State of Punjab and others

¶9

......Respondents

¶10

CORAM:-HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE JASBIR SINGH, ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAKESH KUMAR JAIN

¶11

Present: Mr. Abhinav Oberoi, Advocate, for the petitioner.

¶12

Mr. J.S. Puri, Addl. AG, Punjab, for respondents No. 1, 2, 4 and 5.

¶13

Mr. J.S. Toor, Advocate, for respondent No. 3.

¶14

Mr. R.S. Pandher, Advocate, for respondent No. 6.

¶15

Mr. Ravi Malhotra, Advocate.

¶16

¶17

JASBIR SINGH, A.C.J. (ORAL)

¶18

By filing this writ petition, a grievance has been raised that without any justification, public land belonging to Health Department has been sold by the Municipal Council, Banur, in favour of respondent No. 6 by passing a resolution dated 25.05.2010 (Annexure P2).

¶19

Upon notice, a reply has been filed by way of affidavit of

¶20

CWP No. 11766 of 2012

¶21

¶22

the Senior Superintendent of Police, Rajpura, wherein, it is stated that in connection with the above allegations, FIR No. 39 was recorded on 26.04.2011 and an inquiry is pending before the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab. It is also stated before us by learned counsel for the Municipal Council that operation of the resolution dated 25.05.2010 has been stayed by the competent authority. If that is so, no further directions are required to be issued in this case. However, it is directed that the inquiry, as mentioned in the reply filed, be concluded expeditiously and possibly within a period of two months from the date of receipt of a copy of this order. Before forming an opinion on the merits of the case, the Additional Director General of Police, Crime, Punjab, is directed to look into the contents of the inquiry report submitted by the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Mohali, on 26.04.2011 (Annexure P7).

¶23

Civil Writ Petition is disposed of with the aforesaid

¶24

directions.

¶25

(JASBIR SINGH) ACTING CHIEF JUSTICE

¶26

(RAKESH KUMAR JAIN) JUDGE

¶27

17.09.2012 Amodh

Tanvir Hussain v. State of Punjab and Others

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tanvir Hussain v. State of Punjab and Others

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

Rajesh Kumar Mittal Vs Union of India and Ors.

M/S B M Exports P Ltd. Vs Union of India and Ors.

Madan Lal Vohra Vs Union of India and Ors.

Court on Its Own Motion Vs State of Punjab, Haryana & U.T. Chandigarh

Hy. Distillery Yamunanagar Vs Central Pollution Control Board and Ors.(Main Disposed of)

Rajinder Singh Chauhan Vs State of Haryana and Ors.