Nairesh filed a writ petition. The Court observed that the petitioner's claim was already settled by the Supreme Court in Virender Singh Hooda. Consequently, the Court dismissed the present writ petition.
Petition dismissed as the claim was covered by a prior Supreme Court judgment, providing no specific relief to the petitioner.
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. 1495 of 2001
Date of Decision : May 16, 2012
Naresh Kumar
.... PETITIONER
Vs.
State of Haryana and another
..... RESPONDENTS
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH
Present : Mr. R.K.Malik, Sr. Advocate, with Mr. Mohan Singla, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr. Harish Rathee, Sr. DAG, Haryana.
Mr. H.N.Mehtani, Advocate, for respondent No. 2.
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (ORAL)
The claim of the petitioner in the present writ petition is covered by a judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of Virender Singh Hooda and others vs. State of Haryana and anothe r, reported as 2005 (1) RSJ, 70.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is
dismissed.
(AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) May 16, 2012 JUDGE pj
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the petitioner's claim should be allowed or dismissed in light of the earlier judgment in Virender Singh Hooda.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Virender Singh Hooda and others vs. State of Haryana and anotherFollowed¶14
2005 (1) RSJ, 70
Naresh Kumar
State of Haryana
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
