The Division Bench disposed of this writ petition by observing that the petitioners' claim was fully covered by a prior Division Bench judgment in Prof. S.S. Bindra's case, dismissing the petition accordingly.
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
C.W.P.No.15597 of 2010 Date of Decision:- 04.05.2012
B.K.Saini and others
....Petitioner(s)
vs.
State of Haryana and others
....Respondent(s)
CORAM:- HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ***
Present:Mr.Manoj Chahal, Advocate, for the petitioner.
Mr.Harish Rathee, Sr.DAG, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.
Mr.Amit Rao, Advocate for Mr.S.K.Sharma, Advocate, for respondent No.3.
Mr.Anil S.Ganuj, Advocate, for respondent No.4. ***
AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH, J. (Oral)
Counsel for the respondents informs the Court that the claim as made by the petitioners in the present writ petition is fully covered against them by a Division Bench judgment of this Court passed in Prof. S.S.Bindra and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (3) SCT 291.
On going through he records of the case, I find that the statement made by the counsel for the respondents is correct.
In view of the above, the present writ petition is dismissed in the light of the Division Bench judgment of this Court in Prof.S.S.Bindra's case (supra).
May 04, 2012 ( AUGUSTINE GEORGE MASIH ) poonam JUDGE
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Prof. S.S. Bindra and others vs. State of Punjab and othersFollowed¶15
Prof. S.S.Bindra and others vs. State of Punjab and others, 2011 (3) SCT 291
B.K. Saini and others
State of Haryana and others
Augustine George Masih
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
