Petitioner seeks disposal of writ petition. Respondents accept notices. Court relies on identical case disposed same day via separate order and disposes current 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.
Civil Writ Petition No. 20244 of 2011 DATE OF DECISION : FEBRUARY 14, 2012
LAKSAY VIR & ORS.
....... PETITIONER(S)
VERSUS
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
.... RESPONDENT(S)
CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
PRESENT: None for the petitioner(s).
Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana. Mr. KK Gupta, Advocate, for respondent No.2.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA, J.
As per office note, notices could not be issued to the respondents as the counsel did not file the Process Fee.
Mr. Deepak Jindal, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and Mr. K.K. Gupta, Advocate, who are present in Court, accept notices on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, respectively.
Mr. Gupta states that an identical case viz. CWP 14666 of 2011 (Dhan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another) has been disposed of vide a separate order of even date, and the orders passed in the said case would govern this case as well.
The petition is, accordingly, disposed of in terms of order of even date passed in CWP 14666 of 2011 (Dhan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another).
FEBRUARY 14, 2012 ( RAJIV NARAIN RAINA ) Kang JUDGE
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Dhan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and anotherRelied on¶14
CWP 14666 of 2011 (Dhan Singh and others v. State of Haryana and another)
LAKSAY VIR & ORS.
STATE OF HARYANA & ANR.
RAJIV NARAIN RAINA
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
