Petitioners sought dismissal of the writ petition found infructuous following a reply from respondents No.1 and 2, with a direction to adhere to that stand.
Petition disposed as infructuous with direction to respondents to adhere to their reply stand.
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. 3719 of 2012
Date of Decision: 2.8.2012
Ibrahim and Others
... Petitioners
Versus
State of Haryana and Others
... Respondents
CORAM: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice. Hon'ble Mr. Justice Rakesh Kumar Jain.
Present: Mr. Rajesh Lamba, Advocate for the Petitioners.
Mr. B.S. Rana, Additional Advocate General, Haryana, for respondents No.1 and 2.
None for respondent No.3.
Jasbir Singh, Acting Chief Justice (Oral)
Counsel for the petitioner states that in view of the reply filed
on behalf of respondents No.1 and 2, this writ petition has become infructuous and the same be disposed of as such.
Ordered accordingly.
However, we direct the respondents to adhere to the stand
taken in the reply.
(Jasbir Singh) Acting Chief Justice
(Rakesh Kumar Jain) Judge
August 2, 2012 “DK”
Ibrahim and Others
State of Haryana and Others
Jasbir Singh
Rakesh Kumar Jain
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
