Writ petition dismissed for non-prosecution as petitioners failed to appear despite notice being sent to counsel.
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 & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH
CWP No.1900 of 1994 Date of decision:16.05.2012
Dharam Paul and others
.....Petitioners
Versus
The State of Haryana and others
.....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: None for the petitioners.
Ms. Aakanksha Sawhney, DAG, Haryana for the respondents.
G.S.Sandhawalia J, (oral).
Notice of actual date of hearing had been sent to Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate on 4.5.2012. Office reports that notice issued to Mr. Ranjit Saini, Advocate vide this Courts letter No.4872 dated 7.5.2012 has been received with the report that he was not available on the seat but the notice had been attached on his brief.
There is no representation on behalf of the petitioners.
Accordingly, the writ petition is dismissed for non prosecution.
16.05.2012 (G.S.Sandhawalia) Pka JUDGE
Dharam Paul and others
The State of Haryana and others
G.S.Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
