The writ petition was dismissed for want of prosecution as counsel stated there were no fresh instructions from the petitioner. No substantive legal principles were laid down.
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.2412 of 1994 Date of decision:20.07.2012
Sudershan Kumar .....Petitioner
Versus
State of Haryana & others .....Respondents
CORAM : HON'BLE MR.JUSTICE G.S.SANDHAWALIA
Present: Mr.Vinay Saini, Advocate, for Mr.Ranjit Saini, Advocate, for the petitioner,
Mr.Saurabh Mohunta, DAG, Haryana.
G.S.SANDHAWALIA J. (Oral)
instructions from the petitioner.
20.07.2012 (G.S.SANDHAWALIA) sailesh JUDGE
Sudershan Kumar
State of Haryana
G.S. Sandhawalia
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
